口譯評量為口譯培訓機構中評估學生表現不可或缺的一環，除在學訓練期間的各種評量機制之外，多數口譯培訓機構亦設有專業考試，做為學生是否具備進入專業市場能力的把關。臺灣翻譯研究所層級中，此類專業考試以輔大、臺師大、臺大三校合辦的會議口譯聯合專業考規模最大。為幫助提升口譯教學與學習的成效，本研究針對兩年度的聯合專業考逐步口譯英翻中科目的考生譯文進行質性分析，並將考生譯文錯誤予以分類，隨後將考生的錯誤次數加總，並計算各類錯誤佔所有錯誤的佔比，進一步得出量化數據。結果發現，不論是通過組或未通過組考生，整體數據皆顯示出譯文錯誤佔比最高的是「表達拙劣」、其次為「漏譯或缺譯」。相較於通過組考生，兩年度未通過組考生的整體錯誤態樣相當一致，前三大錯誤依序皆為「表達拙劣」、「漏譯或缺譯」與「誤解原文」。

從本研究結果可以看出，無論口譯教師或學生，在未來的口譯教學與學習過程中，除了語言方面應持續加強學生對英文的理解能力以及中文的表達能力之外，在技巧方面也應該針對英中轉換的能力多加琢磨。

The assessment of students’ interpretation is an integral part of training institutes’ evaluation of students’ performance. Aside from assessments carried out during students’ training period, most training institutes also put in place professional examinations to evaluate whether or not students are competent enough to enter the marketplace. The joint professional conference interpreting examination held by Fu Jen Catholic University, National Taiwan Normal University, and National Taiwan University is the largest of its kind in Taiwan. With an aim to informing interpreting pedagogy and improving learning, the study, through qualitative analysis, classified errors committed in the English-to-Chinese consecutive interpreting examinations by candidates from two different years, and then added up the number of errors in each category. The percentage of errors in each category was then calculated against the total number of errors observed in order to obtain quantitative data. The results showed that “awkward expression” and “omissions” were found as the top two error categories in all pass groups and fail groups. Compared with those of the pass groups, the error profiles of both fail groups shared the same pattern in the order of “awkward expressions”, “omissions”, and “misunderstanding of the original text.”

The results suggested that interpreting instructors and students should not only continue to focus on improving linguistic competence in both English comprehension and Chinese expression in the training period,, but also step up their efforts in enhancing English-to-Chinese conversion skills.

英文書目
Altman, J. (1994). Error analysis in the teaching of simultaneous interpretation. Benjamins Translation Library, 25-38. doi: 10.1075/btl.3.05alt
Amini, M., Ibrahim-González, N., & Ayob, L. (2013). Quality of Interpreting from Users' Perspectives. International Journal of English And Education, 2(1), 89-98.
Arjona, Etilvia (1983). Testing and evaluation. In M.L. McIntire (Ed.), New Dialogues in Interpreter Education. Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference of Interpreter Trainers Convention (pp. 111-138). Silver Spring: RID.
Arjona‐Tseng, E. (1993). A psychometric approach to the selection of translation and interpreting students in Taiwan. Perspectives, 1(1), 91-104. doi: 10.1080/0907676x.1993.9961203
Barik, H. C. (1971). A Description of Various Types of Omissions, Additions and Errors of Translation Encountered in Simultaneous Interpretation. Meta: Journal des traducteurs, 16(4), 199. doi: 10.7202/001972ar
Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, 5(4), 231-236.
Chiaro, D., & Nocella, G. (2004). Interpreters’ Perception of Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Factors Affecting Quality: A Survey through the World Wide Web. Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs, 49(2), 278. doi: 10.7202/009351ar
Corder, S. (1967). The Significance of Learners’ Errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5, 161-170.
Gerver, D., Longley, P., Long, J., & Lambert, S. (1989). Selection Tests for Trainee Conference Interpreters. Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs, 34(4), 724. doi: 10.7202/002884ar
Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (2005). Teaching conference interpreting. Training for The New Millennium, 127-151. doi: 10.1075/btl.60.12gil
Kalina, S. (2002). Quality in interpreting and its prerequisites: A framework for a comprehensive view. In Garzone, G., & Viezzi, M. (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century: challenges and opportunities (pp. 121-130). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Kopczynski, A. (1994). Quality in Conference Interpreting: Some Pragmatic Problems. In Kaindl, K., Pöchhacker, F., & Snell-Hornby, M. (Eds.), Translation Studies. An interdiscipline (pp. 189-198). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Kurz, I. (1993). Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 5, 13-21.
Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the Translator. Benjamins Translation Library. doi: 10.1075/btl.10
Marrone, S. (1993). Quality: A Shared Objective. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 5, 35-41.
Pöchhacker, F. (2001). Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting. Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs, 46(2), 410. doi: 10.7202/003847ar
Pochhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies (p. 173). London: Routledge.
Pym, A. (1992). Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching, In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds), Teaching translation and interpreting: Training, talent, and experience (pp. 279-288). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Sawyer, D. (2004). Fundamental aspects of interpreter education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.33-35.
Vivanco, H., Carlos Palazuelos, J., Hörmann, P., Garbarini, C., & Blatrach, M. (1990). Error Analysis in Translation: A Preliminary Report. Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs, 35(3), 538. doi: 10.7202/002207ar
Waddington, C. (2001) Different methods of evaluating student translations: The Question of Validity, Meta, 46(2), 311-325
Zwischenberger, C. (2010) Quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: an international vs. a national view, The Interpreters' Newsletter, 15, 127-142.

中文書目
王啟安（2015）。中英會議口譯聯合專業考試對考生之意義及影響（碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
周兆祥、陳育沾（1995）。口譯的理論與實踐。台北：臺灣商務印書館。
國家教育研究院（2012）。臺灣翻譯產業調查研究。臺北：國立臺灣師範大學翻譯研究所。
葉舒白（2012）。逐句口譯之錯誤分析研究（博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
廖柏森（2010）。大學生英譯中的筆譯錯誤分析與教學上的應用。編譯論叢，3（2），101-128。
劉敏華（1993）。逐步口譯與筆記－理論、實踐與教學。台北：輔仁大學。
劉敏華、張嘉倩、吳紹銓（2008）。口譯訓練學校之評估作法：臺灣與中英美十一校之比較。編譯論叢，1（1），1-42。