本研究旨在探討原文速度對英譯中同步口譯產出之語言及時間面向的影響，並檢視原文速度與英語能力之交互作用對口譯產出各面向的影響。本研究之實驗材料為三篇英文演講。每篇演講之原文速度操弄為三個水準：每分鐘100字、每分鐘130字與每分鐘160字。

實驗參與者為28位翻譯研究所口譯組學生。這28位參與者依照英語能力檢定程度區分成高英語能力與低英語能力兩組。每位參與者翻譯三篇演講，而三篇演講的速度均不同。參與者之同步口譯產出則從六個語言面向與三個時間面向來分析。語言面向包括詞彙的漏譯、片段的漏譯、詞彙的替代、片段的替代、句構干擾與詞彙多樣性。時間面向包括耳口間距（EVS）、無聲停頓之次數與產出速度。

實驗結果採用線性混合模式（linear mixed model）之變異數分析，以檢視原文速度及原文速度與英語能力之交互作用對九項口譯產出面向的影響。統計分析結果顯示，原文速度與英語能力之交互作用對口譯產出面向的影響均不顯著，而原文速度對詞彙的漏譯、片段的漏譯、詞彙的替代、句構干擾、詞彙多樣性、EVS、無聲停頓與產出速度等八個面向則有顯著影響。

Bonferroni事後檢定結果顯示，在每分鐘100字的速度下，學生口譯員的詞彙漏譯與詞彙替代比在每分鐘130字與160字的速度下要多，而片段漏譯則是隨著原文速度上升而增加。在每分鐘100字的速度下，學生口譯員受到的原文句構干擾比在每分鐘160字的速度下顯著要高。不過，學生口譯員的詞彙多樣性則是在每分鐘160字的速度下比另外兩個速度顯著要高。就時間面向而言，當原文速度從每分鐘100字上升至每分鐘130字，學生口譯員的EVS縮短，無聲停頓次數減少，產出速度加快。原文速度從每分鐘130字上升至160 字時，學生口譯員的無聲停頓次數持續減少，但EVS並未持續縮短，而產出速度也未顯著增加。以上結果顯示，原文速度過快或過慢，對學生口譯員的產出都會造成困難。即便英語能力與原文速度之交互作用均未達顯著，英語能力仍然對學生口譯員的同步口譯表現有重要影響。高英語能力組學生的片段漏譯現象顯著較少，處理中英句構差異時採用顯著較多的順譯策略，而產出速度也比低英語能力組學生顯著要快。

This research seeks to investigate the effects of input rate as well as the interactive effects of input rate and English proficiency on the linguistic and temporal aspects of the output of simultaneous interpreting (SI) from English into Chinese. In the present study, three source speeches were used and the input rate of these speeches was manipulated to be at three levels – 100 wpm, 130 wpm, and 160 wpm – for the SI experiment.

Twenty-eight graduate students of interpreting participated in the experiment. The participants were divided into high and low groups according to their English proficiency levels. Each participant interpreted three source speeches and the input rate of each speech was different. Six linguistic and three temporal parameters were adopted to analyze the participants’ SI output. The linguistic parameters include omissions of words, omissions of segments, substitutions of words, substitutions of segments, syntactic interference, and lexical diversity. The temporal parameters include EVS, the number of unfilled pauses, and the output rate.

A linear mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine the effects of input rate as well as the interactive effects of input rate and English proficiency on the nine aspects of student interpreters’ output. The results of statistical analysis indicated that there was no significant interactive effect between input rate and English proficiency on student interpreters’ output, but there were significant effects of input rate on omissions of words, omissions of segments, substitutions of words, syntactic interference, lexical diversity, EVS, unfilled pauses, and the output rate.

The Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that student interpreters made more omissions and substitutions of words at 100 wpm than at 130 wpm and 160 wpm. However, they omitted more segments as the input rate increased. The extent of syntactic interference from the source language was significantly higher at 100 wpm than at 160 wpm. In addition, student interpreters’ lexical diversity was significantly higher at 160 wpm than at the two slower rates. As for the influence of input rate on the temporal aspects, when the input rate increased from 100 wpm to 130 wpm, student interpreters shortened their EVS, paused less and spoke faster. As the input rate increased from 130 wpm to 160 wpm, their unfilled pauses decreased further. However, their EVS did not shorten further and the output rate did not increase beyond the rate of 130 wpm. These findings suggest that both slow and fast input rates posed difficulty to student interpreters’ SI output. Although no significant interactive effect was found between input rate and English proficiency, English proficiency still played an important role in the SI performance. Students in the high proficiency group made significantly fewer omissions of segments and adopted more linearity strategies when dealing with syntactic differences between English and Chinese. They also spoke faster than the low proficiency group.

Ahrens, B. (2005). Prosodic phenomena in simultaneous interpreting: A conceptual approach and its practical application. Interpreting, 7(1), 51–76.
Anderson, L. (1994). Simultaneous interpretation: Contextual and translation aspects. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 101–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559.
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189–208.
Barghout, A., Rosendo, L. R., & García, M. V. (2015). The influence of speed on omissions in simultaneous interpretation: An experimental study. Babel, 61(3), 305–334.
Barik, H. C. (1971). A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 16(4), 199–210.
Barik, H. C. (1973). Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data. Language & Speech, 16(3), 237–270.
Barik, H. C. (1975). Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. Language & Speech, 18(3), 272–297.
Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2013). From language-specific to shared syntactic representations: The influence of second language proficiency on syntactic sharing in bilinguals. Cognition, 127(3), 287–306.
Cecot, M. (2001). Pauses in simultaneous interpretation: A contrastive analysis of professional interpreters’ performances. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 11, 63–85.
Chang, A. L. (2009). Ear-voice-span and target language rendition in Chinese to English simultaneous interpretation. Studies of Translation and Interpretation, 12, 177–217.
Chen, C. (2012). Ear-voice span and performance in English to Chinese simultaneous interpretation (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Changhwa University of Education, Changhwa, Taiwan.
Chernov, G. V. (1979). Semantic aspects of psycholinguistic research in simultaneous interpretation. Language & Speech, 22(3), 277–295.
Cheung, A. K. (2008). Simultaneous interpreting of numbers. Forum, 6(2), 23–38.
Christoffels, I. (2006). Listening while talking: The retention of prose under articulatory suppression in relation to simultaneous interpreting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(2), 206–220.
Christoffels, I. K., & De Groot, A. M. B. (2005). Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive perspective. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 434–479). New York: Oxford University Press.
Christoffels, I. K., De Groot, A. M. B., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(3), 324–345.
Christoffels, I. K., De Groot, A. M. B., & Waldorp, L. J. (2003). Basic skills in a complex task: A graphical model relating memory and lexical retrieval to simultaneous interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(03), 201–211.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97
Cowan, N. (2000). Processing limits of selective attention and working memory: Potential implications for interpreting. Interpreting, 5(2), 117–146.
Dam, H. V. (1998). Lexical similarity vs. lexical dissimilarity in consecutive interpreting. The Translator, 4(1), 49–68.
Dam, H. V. (2001). On the option between form-based and meaning-based interpreting: The effect of source text difficulty on lexical target text form in simultaneous interpreting. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 11, 27–55.
De Groot, A. M. B. (1997). The cognitive study of translation and interpretation: Three approaches. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 25–56). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
De Groot, A. M. B. (2000). A Complex-skill approach to translation and interpreting. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit & R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research (pp. 53–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
De Groot, A. M. B. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals: An introduction. New York: Psychology Press.
Déjean Le Féal, K. (1982). Why impromptu speech is easy to understand. In N. E. Enkvist (Ed.), Impromptu speech: A symposium (pp. 221–239). Åbo: Åbo Akademi.
Díaz-Galaz, S., Padilla, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2015). The role of advance preparation in simultaneous interpreting: A comparison of professional interpreters and interpreting students. Interpreting, 17(1), 1–25.
Dong, Y., & Lin, J. (2013). Parallel processing of the target language during source language comprehension in interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(03), 682–692.
Fabbro, F., Gran, B., & Gran, L. (1991). Hemispheric specialization for semantic and syntactic components of language in simultaneous interpreters. Brain and Language, 41, 1–42.
Fabbro, F., & Gran, L. (1994). Neurological and neuropsychological aspects of polyglossia and simultaneous interpretation. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 273–317). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233.
Galli, C. (1989). Simultaneous interpretation in medical conferences: A case-study. In L. Gran & C. Taylor (Eds.), Aspects of applied experimental research on conference interpretation (pp. 162–184). Udine: Campanotto Editore.
Gerver, D. (1969). The effects of source language presentation rate on the performance of simultaneous conference interpreters. In E. Foulke (Ed.), Proceedings of the second Lousiville conference on rate and/or frequency-controlled speech (pp. 162–184). Kentucky: Center for Rate-Controlled Recordings, University of Louisville.
Gerver, D. (1974). Simultaneous listening and speaking and retention of prose. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26(3), 337–341.
Gerver, D. (1975). A psychological approach to simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 20(2), 119–128.
Gerver, D. (1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Application and research (pp. 165–207). New York: Gardner Press.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (1st ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (1997). Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 196–214). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gile, D. (1999). Testing the effort models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting - A contribution. Hermes, 23, 153–172.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. (Rev. ed.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. London: Academic Press.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972). Segmentation of input in simultaneous translation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1(2), 127–140.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gumul, E., & Łyda, A. (2007). The time constraint in conference interpreting: Simultaneous vs. consecutive. Research in Language, 5, 165–183.
Isham, W. P. (1994). Memory for sentence form after simultaneous interpretation: Evidence both for and against deverbalization. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 191–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Johansson, V. (2009). Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: A developmental perspective. Working Papers in Linguistics, 53, 61–79.
Kim, H.-R. (2005). Linguistic characteristics and interpretation strategy based on EVS analysis of Korean-Chinese, Korean-Japanese interpretation. Meta, 50(4), 1492-1421.
Kirchhoff, H. (1976/2002). Simultaneous interpreting: Interdependence of variables in the interpreting process, interpreting models and interpreting strategies. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 111–119). New York: Routledge.
Kohn, K., & Kalina, S. (1996). The strategic dimension of interpreting. Meta, 41(1), 118–138. https://doi.org/10.7202/003333ar
Korpal, P. (2012). Omission in simultaneous interpreting as a deliberate act. In A. Pym & D. Orrego-Carmona (Eds.), Translation research project 4 (pp. 103–111). Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 149–174.
Lamberger-Felber, H. (2001). Text-oriented research into interpreting. Examples from a case-study. Hermes, 26, 39–63.
Lamberger-Felber, H., & Schneider, J. (2008). Linguistic interference in simultaneous interpreting with text. In H. Gyde, C. Andrew, & G.-A. Heidrun (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile (pp. 215–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lambert, Sylvie. (1988). Information processing among conference interpreters: A test of the depth-of-processing hypothesis. Meta, 33(3), 377–387.
Lee, T.-H. (1999a). Simultaneous listening and speaking in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 44(4), 560–572.
Lee, T.-H. (1999b). Speech proportion and accuracy in simultaneous interpretation from English into Korean. Meta, 44(2), 260–267.
Lee, T.-H. (2002). Ear voice span in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 47(4), 596–606.
Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (2003). A communicative grammar of English (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Liu, M. (2001). Expertise in simultaneous interpreting: A working memory analysis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, US.
Liu, M., Schallert, D. L., & Carroll, P. J. (2004). Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting, 6(1), 19–42.
Massaro, D. W. (1975). Experimental psychology and information processing. Chicago: Rand McNally College.
Massaro, D. W., & Shlesinger, M. (1997). Information processing and a computational approach to the study of simultaneous interpretation. Interpreting, 2(1–2), 13–53.
Mead, P. (2000). Control of pauses by trainee interpreters in their A and B languages. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 89–102.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.
Moser, B. (1978). Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practical application. In D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication (pp. 353–368). New York: Plenum Press.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1997). Beyond curiosity: Can interpreter research meet the challenge? In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 176–195). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Oléron, P., & Nanpon, H. (1965/2002). Research into simultaneous translation. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 43–50). London: Routledge.
Paneth, E. (1957/2002). An investigation into conference interpreting. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp. 31–40). London: Routledge.
Piccaluga, M., Nespoulous, J., Harmegnies, B., & Mons-hainaut, U. D. (2005). Disfluencies as a window on cognitive processing: An analysis of silent pauses in simultaneous interpreting. Proceedings of DiSS’05 Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech Workshop, 151–155.
Pio, S. (2003). The relation between ST delivery rate and quality in simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 12, 69–100.
Plevoets, K., & Defrancq, B. (2016). The effect of informational load on disfluencies in interpreting: A corpus-based regression analysis. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 11(2), 202–224.
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge.
Pradas Macías, M. (2006). Probing quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: The role of silent pauses in fluency. Interpreting, 8(1), 25–43.
Rennert, S. (2010). The impact of fluency on the subjective assessment of interpreting quality. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 15, 101–115.
Ruiz, C., Paredes, N., Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2008). Activation of lexical and syntactic target language properties in translation. Acta Psychologica, 128(3), 490–500.
Seleskovitch, D. (1976). Interpretation: A psychological approach to translating. In R. D. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research (pp. 92–116). New York: Gardner Press.
Shlesinger, M. (2000). Interpreting as a cognitive process: How can we know what really happens? In S. Tirkkonen-Condit & R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research (pp. 3–15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shlesinger, M. (2003). Effects of presentation rate on working memory in simultaneous interpreting. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 12, 37–49.
Shreve, G. M., & Diamond, B. J. (1997). Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting: Critical issues. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting (pp. 233–251). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, T.-H., Lin, W.-C., Hsieh, K.-S., & Chang, K.-E. (2016). CRIE: An automated analyzer for Chinese texts. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1238–1251.
Taylor, C. (1989). Primary and secondary orality in teaching interpreting technique. In T. M. Dodds (Ed.), Aspects of English: Miscellaneous papers for English teachers and specialists (pp. 93–102). Udine, Italy: Companotto Editore.
Timarová, Š., Čeňková, I., & Meylaerts, R. (2015). Simultaneous interpreting and working memory capacity. In A. Ferreira & J. W. Schwieter (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries into translation and interpreting (pp. 101–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Timarová, Š., Čeňková, I., Meylaerts, R., Hertog, E., Szmalec, A., & Duyck, W. (2014). Simultaneous interpreting and working memory executive control. Interpreting, 16(2), 139–168.
Timarová, S., Dragsted, B., & Hansen, I. G. (2011). Time lag in translation and interpreting: A methodological exploration. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp. 121–146). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tissi, B. (2000). Silent pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 10, 103–127.
Tommola, J. (2003). Establishing the transfer of semantic information interpreting. In Á. Collados, M. M. Fernández Sánchez, & D. Gile (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Investigación (pp. 125–146). Granada: Comares.
Treisman, A. M. (1965). The effects of redundancy and familiarity on translating and repeating back a foreign and a native language. British Journal of Psychology, 56(4), 369–379.
Tseng, A. M., Chang, L.-Y., & Tokowicz, N. (2014). Translation ambiguity between English and Mandarin Chinese: The role of proficiency and word characteristics. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The development of translation competence (pp. 106–165). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.
Tzou, Y.-Z., Eslami, Z. R., Chen, H.-C., & Vaid, J. (2012). Effect of language proficiency and degree of formal training in simultaneous interpreting on working memory and interpreting performance: Evidence from Mandarin–English speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(2), 213–227.
Yagi, S. M. (2000). Studying style in simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 45(3), 520–547.
Yip, P.-C., & Rimmington, D. (2004). Chinese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
Zhang, Q. (2010). Mechanisms of deverbalization in consecutive interpreting: An experimental study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangdong, China.