在台灣，全國有13萬餘外籍配偶，他們離鄉背井來到台灣，語言成為他們與主流社會的隔閡。社區口譯是服務當地居民的一種口譯，台灣許多非營利組織從事社區口譯幫助新住民，克服語言不通的困難，使得新住民也能享有與一般國民相同的權利。不過，台灣的社區口譯研究仍在初始階段，相關研究十分稀少。台灣的非營利組織認為社區口譯是什麼？什麼樣的口譯才是好的社區口譯？社區口譯員（通譯）又需要遵守什麼規範？

本研究整理Bühler （1986）、Kurz （1993）、汝明麗（1996）、Mesa（1997，引自Pöchhacker，2001）、Pöchhacker（2000）、Kadric（2000，引自Pöchhacker，2001）、曾話晴（2009）等口譯品質研究，還有ICTY（1999）、AUSIT（2001）、NCIHC（2005）、NAJIT（2006）、ITI（2007）、JCC（2008）、Kelly（2008）、AACI（2011）、STIBC（2011）、ITS（2011）等口譯專業倫理準則，比較非營利組織社區口譯與過去研究的差異，並根據Salamon（1995）的第三者政府與志願失靈理論，對非營利組織與政府提出建議。研究採用問卷調查與半結構式訪談，調查財團法人伊甸社會福利基金會與財團法人賽珍珠基金會對於社區口譯的定義。研究結果發現：
1. 受訪單位對於社區口譯口譯品質的定義與過去口譯品質研究類似，最重視的口譯品質項目為忠實（fidelity）、完整（completeness）、可信賴（reliability）。
2. 受訪單位對於社區口譯的定義與口譯專業倫理準則類似。但受訪單位因為組織本身的社會福利背景特色，以社工專業倫理來定位社區口譯員的規範，認為口譯員有社工的角色和任務。另外，受訪單位也認為口譯員需有同理心、具有熱情的特質。
3. 受訪單位對於社區口譯的定義符合志願失靈中的三種現象。慈善的業餘性和特殊性反映在各組織以自身需要出發的訓練機制上，慈善的不足性則代表組織相關經費的不足。
本研究建議政府結合學術機關的力量，提供非營利組織社區口譯相關經費，並建立跨組織的訓練機制、認證方式，培育專業的社區口譯人才。政府也應協助制定台灣社區口譯的專業倫理規範。非營利組織也應加強組織內部對於員工的社區口譯相關教育訓練。

In Taiwan, more than 130 thousand foreign spouses face linguistic challenges everyday, which separate them from the mainstream culture. Many NPOs (Nonprofit Organizations) engage in community interpreting, the interpreting service that helps local residents overcome linguistic difficulties, to help these new immigrants gain access to their rights. However, related studies on community interpreting are scarce in Taiwan, and it is vital to understand how these NPOs define community interpreting in terms of interpreting quality and code of ethics.

This study incorporates interpreting quality studies such as Bühler (1986)、Kurz (1993)、Ju(1996)、Mesa(1997, from Pöchhacker，2001)、Pöchhacker(2000)、Kadric(2000, from Pöchhacker，2001)、Tseng(2009)and interpreting code of ethics such as ICTY(1999)、AUSIT(2001)、NCIHC(2005)、NAJIT(2006)、ITI(2007)、JCC(2008)、Kelly(2008)、AACI(2011)、STIBC(2011)、ITS(2011)to survey and interview two NPOs in Taiwan: Eden Social Welfare Foundation and the Pearl S. Buck Foundation. Salamon(1995)’s Third Party Government and Voluntary Failure Theory is used to comment on the findings of this study and to provide suggestions for the government and NPOs. The findings are as follows:
1. The interviewed NPOs defined community interpreting quality in ways similar to past studies. The most valued quality items are fidelity, completeness and reliability.
2. The interviewed NPOs agree with interpreting code of ethics. The difference is the interviewed NPOs use social work ethics to regulate community interpreters, which, in their understanding, is similar to interpreting ethics. Community Interpreters have social workers’roles, and they are expected to be passionate and have empathy.
3. The definition of community interpreting of the interviewed NPOs reflected three types of voluntary failure. Philanthropic insufficiency is reflected by NPO’s lack of interpreting budget; philanthropic particularism and amateurism are manifested by the training programs.

This study suggests the government to fund the NPOs, to establish cross-organizational training institution and to combine the academic to frame a code of ethics for community interpreting. NPOs should also enhance internal training on community interpreting for staff.

外文文獻
AACI. (2011). Code of Ethics Retrieved 5/17, 2011, from http://www.gerichtsdolmetscher.at/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=63&lang=en
AIIC. (2011a). Interpretation: one profession, several jobs: A talk with Sílvia Camilo, from http://www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/page3397.htm
AIIC. (2011b). Types of Interpreting, from http://www.aiic.net/viewpage.cfm?page_id=1943
Alexander, C., Edwards, R., & Temple, B. (2005). Using Interpreters to Access Services: User Views. Retrieved 6/1, 2011, from http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/934.asp
AUSIT. (2001). AUSIT Code of Ethics for Interpreters & Translators. Retrieved 5/17, 2011, from http://www.ausit.org/eng/showpage.php3?id=650
Berger, J. (2003). Religious Nongovernmental Organizations: An Exploratory Analysis. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14(1), 15-39.
Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Meta, 5(4), 231-235.
DSHS, Washionton State (2011). Interpreter Code of Ethics (Language Interpreter and Translator Code of Professional Conduct) Retrieved 6/17, 2011, from http://www.dshs.wa.gov/ltc/ethics.shtml
Drucker, P. F. (1994). 非營利組織的經營管理（Managing the non-profit organization : practices and principles） (余佩珊譯). 台北: 遠流出版社.
Gile, D. (1991). A Communication-Oriented Analysis of Quality in Nonliterary Translation and Interpretation. In M. L. Larson (Ed.), Translation: Theory and Practice. Tension and Interdependence (Vol. V, pp. 188-200). Birmingham NY: SUNY.
Hale, S. (2008). Community Interpreting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hansmann, H. B. (1980). The Role of Nonprofit Enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89(5).
Hansmann, H. B. (1987). Economic theories of nonprofit organization. The nonprofit sector: A research handbook, 1.
Hermann, A. (1956). Interpreting in Antiquity (R. Morris, Trans.). In M. Shlesinger & F. Pöchhacker (Eds.), The Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 15-22). London: Routledge.
Herzlinger, R. E. (1996). Restoring public trust in nonprofits and governments - Reply. HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, 74(3), 168-169.
Hrehovčík, T. (1996). Teaching Community Interpreting. In M. Jérôme-O'Keeffe (Ed.), Global Vision: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. Alexandra, Virginia: American Translators Association.
Hsieh, E. (2008). “I am not a robot!” Interpreters’ Views of Their Roles in Health Care Settings. Qualitative Health Research, 18(10).
Hwa-Froelich, D. A., & E.Westby, C. (2003). A Vietnamese Head Start Interpreter: A Case Study. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 24(2), 86-98.
ICTY. (1999). The Code of Ethics for Interpreters and Translators Employed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Retrieved 5/17, 2011, from http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Miscellaneous/it144_codeofethicsinterpreters_en.pdf
ITI. (2007). Code of Professional Conduct. Retrieved 5/17, 2011
ITS. (2011). Indonesian Translation Service Code of Ethics, from http://users.coastal.net.au/bahasa/page3.html
JCC(Judicial Court of California).(2008). California Rules of Court- Rule 984.4 Professional conduct for interpreters Cross-Cultural Health Care Program Fourth Edition. Retrieved 5/17, 2011
Karlik, J. (2010). Interpreter-mediated scriptures: Expectation and performance. Interpreting, 12(2), 160-185.
Kelly, N. (2008). Telephone Interpreting: A Comprehensive Guide to the Profession: Trafford Publishing.
Kurz, I. (1993). Conference Interpretation: Expectations from Different User Groups. In M. Shlesinger & F. Pöchhacker (Eds.), The Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 313-324). London: Routledge.
Mikkelson, H. (1996). The Professionalization of Community Interpreting. In M. Jérôme-O'Keeffe (Ed.), Global Vision: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association (pp. p.77-89). Alexandra, Virginia: American Translators Association.
NAJIT. (2006). Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities Retrieved 5/17, 2011, from http://www.najit.org/about/NAJITCodeofEthicsFINAL.pdf
NCIHC. (2005). National Standards of Practice for Interpreters in Health Care: National Council on Interpreting in Health Care.
Pöchhacker, F. (2000). The Community Interpreter's Task: Self-Perception and Provider Views. In R. P. Roberts, S. E. Carr, D. Abraham & A. Dufour (Eds.), The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pöchhacker, F. (2001). Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting. Meta, 46(2), p.410-425.
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.
Roberts, R. (1994). Community Interpreting Today and Tomorrow. In P. Krawutschke (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association (pp. p. 127-138). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
Rosenberg, E., Seller, R., & Leanza, Y. (2008). Through interpreters’ eyes: Comparing roles of professional and family interpreters. Patient Education and Counseling, 70(1), 87-93. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.09.015
Salamon, L., & Anheier, H. (1992). In search of the non-profit sector. I: The question of definitions. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 3(2), 125-151.
Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in public service : government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press
Schweda Nicholson, N. (1994). Professional Ethics for Court and Community Interpreters. In D. L. Hammond (Ed.), Professional Issues for Translators and Interpreters (Vol. VII, pp. 79-98). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Seidman, I. (2009). 訪談研究法（Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences） (李政賢譯). 臺北市: 五南.
STIBC. (2011). Code of Ethics Retrieved 5/17, 2011, from http://www.stibc.org/page/code%20of%20ethics.aspx
Townsley, B. (2007). Interpreting in the UK Community: Some Reflections on Public Service Interpreting in the UK. Language and Intercultural Communication, 7(2), 163-170. doi: 10.2167/laic272.0
UN-DPI/NGO. (2011). NGOs AND THE UNITED NATIONS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION: SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Retrieved 6/16, 2011, from http://www.freedom4all.net/Aanvraagprocedure%20NGO%20status.pdf
Yin, R. K. (2003). 個案研究─設計與方法 (周海濤、李永賢、張蘅譯). 臺北市: 五南.

中文文獻
內政部主計處. (2011). 一○○年第十七週內政統計通報(99年移民照顧輔導成果).
內政部社會司. (1998). 社會工作倫理守則(含逐條說明). Retrieved from http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/08/b/b202.htm.
司徒達賢. (1999). 非營利組織的經營管理. 臺北市: 天下遠見.
汝明麗. (1996). 從使用者觀點探討口譯品質與口譯員之角色. 私立天主教輔仁大學碩士論文，臺北.
江明修. (2002). 非營利管理. 臺北市: 智勝文化.
呂慶龍. (2005). 台灣非政府組織走向國際社會之策略 非營利組織培力指南. 臺北市: 青輔會.
周中天, 陳子瑋, 何淑媚, 王振宇, 洪瑞恬, 郭姿禕, . . . 鍾欣戎. (2004). 臺灣翻譯產業現況調查研究總結分析報告. 行政院新聞局.
官有垣. (2000). 非營利組織在台灣的發展：兼論政府對財團法人基金會的法令規範. 中國行政評論, 10(1), 75-110.
官有垣. (2002). 第三部門的研究：經濟學觀點與部門互動理論的檢視. 台灣社會福利學刊(3).
官有垣 & 王仕圖. (2000). 非營利組織的相關理論. 載於蕭新煌 (主編), 非營利部門：組織與運作(pp. 43-74). 臺北市: 巨流.
林宜芳. (2008). 台灣NGO翻譯人力資源之問題分析( Analysis of Translators and Interpreters in Taiwanese Non-Governmental Organizations). 私立長榮大學碩士論文, 臺南.
林淑馨. (2008). 非營利組織管理. 臺北市: 三民.
法務部檢察司. (2009). 高等法院及其分院檢察署建置特約通譯名冊及日費旅費報酬支給要點.
洪瑞恬. (2005). 口譯之專業化發展與職業聲望初探. 國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文，臺北市。
胡佳榮、廖柏森. (2009). 臺灣大專中英口譯教學現況探討. 編譯論叢, 2(1), 151-178.
張芳全. (2008). 問卷就是要這樣編. 臺北市: 心理.
陳子瑋. (2009). 口譯評估. 編譯論叢, 2(1), 249-256.
陳定銘. (2007). 非營利組織、政府與社會企業：理論與實踐. 臺北市: 智勝文化.
陳俊良. (2009). 伊甸基金會雙福使命與資源策略的回顧與前瞻. 社區發展季刊(126), 75-94.
陸宛蘋. (1999). 非營利組織之定義與角色. 社區發展季刊(85), 30-35.
曾話晴. (2009). A Pilot Study on Church Interpreting in Taiwan.（台灣基督教會口譯初探研究） 國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文，臺北市。
馮燕. (2000). 導論：非營利組織之定義、功能與發展. 載於蕭新煌 (主編), 非營利部門：組織與運作(pp. 1-42). 臺北市: 巨流.
黃慶讚. (2000). 從社會福利的發展看非營利機構與政府間之互動關係. 載於蕭新煌 (主編), 非營利部門：組織與運作(pp. 291-314). 臺北市: 巨流.
廖柏森、李亭穎. (2010). 台灣大學生對於口譯課程看法之探討. 翻譯學研究集刊, 13, 255-292.
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), p.1-42.