台灣法庭口譯史：對話性口譯及專業化進程

Abstract

本論文主要探討台灣的法庭通譯如何從早期一位介於荷蘭人與原住民社商且帶有負面形象的溝通媒介，演變成今天根據人權觀念，保障外國當事人也能公平取得司法服務的關鍵角色。全文包括兩方面的研究主題以形成研究框架，首要為對話口譯研究，配合口譯專業化討論，筆者據此對台灣四百年來的法庭口譯活動進行有系統的歷史回顧。首先，法庭口譯是對話式口譯的一種，包含來自三方面參與者的溝通，在現代社會多發生在社區中的法庭或偵查庭或警察局，目的在於解決民間訴訟與糾紛，法庭口譯因而也稱為社區口譯或公共服務口譯。不同於會譯口譯，對話口譯員的位置比較明顯，並具有機構內部成員權力不平均的特點 (見Wadensjö, 1998; Hsieh, 2009; Mason, 1999; 任文, 2010)。Wadensjö (1998) 曾探討對話口譯中口譯員的位置、服務與控制性、面子與禮貌策略、忠誠衝突及殖民因素問題。謝怡玲 (2009) 研究醫療性對話口譯的溝通特點與語境特徵，認為口譯員的位置或眼神、使用人稱、話語層次及其他非語言的溝通行為是非常值得討論的面向。Mason (1999) 闡明對話口譯過程中涉及權力與面子，參與架構，角色衝突，忠誠衝突，還有特定的文化社會裏的符號限制問題。其他如任文 (2010) 指出對話口譯員在法庭或醫療情境的主體性意識。這些學者皆不約而同提出，對話口譯員身兼機構守門員、對話過程的協調者與文化語意磋商者三種角色。本論文中研究者對以上議題逐一討論，並繪圖呈現其中的關聯性以形成一種理論模型，作為未來對話口譯活動分析之用。

近年來由於國際人權法律的推進，國際間特別是西方各國特別注重法庭口譯，法庭口譯逐漸趨於專業化。Mikkelson (1996) 特別根據Tseng(1992) 的口譯專業化研究，分析當代社區口譯專業化的過程並提出改進建議。根據這派見解，專業化的特徵以訓練機構出現最早，而以倫理規範最重要，倫理規範對外可贏得社會大眾信任，對內則是規範各成員的隱形工具。本論文中研究者針對台灣法庭口譯的發展，修正Tseng原來為會議口譯設計的專業化模型，作為台灣法庭口譯的專業化模型。

本論文依台灣的法政發展分為五個階段:(1)早期 (1683-1895，包括原住民自至時期、荷蘭西班牙治理時期及明鄭時期)，(2)清朝時期 (1683-1895)，(3)日據時期 (1895-1945)，(4)國民黨專政時期 (1946-2000)與(5)現代。一開始屬於原住民自治時期，荷蘭人曾為台灣建立西方法庭的雛型。進入二十世紀全球化的結果，法律口譯員更呈現多種語言面貌。每個階段由於法政背景不同，各有其值得探討的面向，進展到現代階段法庭口譯終於大致發展出口譯專業化應具備的所有元素，如有系統的訓練課程、專業知識、倫理規範及專業組織。作為一位機構守門員，對話協調和文化磋商者，角色也從昔日的負面形象演變到今天的舉足輕重。由於台灣的司法史經歷很長時期的殖民與被殖民過程，本研究過程也補充了對話口譯理論有關殖民或後殖民口譯討論的不足，研究者結合了口譯理論研究與口譯史，希望這種研究方法對未來口譯研究是一種突破。In this dissertation the researcher examines how the court interpreter in Taiwan has evolved from an ill-reputed mediator among indigenous bands to a key person ensuring equal access to judicial services based on human right concerns. In addition to the main topic of dialogue interpreting, this researcher also discusses interpreting professionalization. These two threads may seem separate, but are actually relatedin terms of court interpreting as an emerging profession.

First of all, court interpreting as a type of dialogue interpreting (also referred to as “liaison interpreting,” “ad hoc interpreting,” “community interpreting,” and “public service interpreting”) involves various elements related to “dialogue” in an interactive, situational setting. As the situational setting often occurs in an asylum, police station, prosecutor’s office, or courtroom, it is also referred to as a type of “community interpreting” or “public service interpreting.” In contrast to a simultaneous interpreter, a dialogue interpreter is mostly visible at the scene, and the setting usually involves a power differential (see Wadensjö, 1998; 謝怡玲, 2009; Mason, 1999; 任文, 2010). Prominent researchers of dialogue interpretation include Wadensjö (1998), who has covered such topics as the interpreter’s physical position, face and politeness, conflicting loyalties, and colonial issues; 謝怡玲 (2009), who highlights such topics as position, eye contact, direct or indirect speech, register change, and non-verbal commutation; Mason (1999), who covers issues of power and face, participation, conflicting loyalties, and semiotic constraints. Furthermore, 任文 (2010) discusses the subjectivity of a liaison interpreter,, empowerment, and unconventional neutrality. Almost unanimously, these researchers argue that a dialogue interpreter plays the role of institutional gatekeeper, coordinator of taking turns, and negotiator of meaning in triadic communication. In this study the researcher first discusses internal characteristics and issues of dialogue interpretation. To organize and demonstrate these topics in a conceptual way, she further constructs a diagram to show their internal relations.

With the introduction of human rights laws in various countries during the 20th century, court interpreting has drawn a lot of attention. Observing the situation worldwide, Mikkelson (1996) discusses the professionalization of community interpreting based on Tseng’s (1992) model. Tseng refers to two theories in formulating his model of interpreting professionalization, i.e., trait theory and control theory. According to the trait theory, “training institutions emerge much earlier than other characteristics, but establishment of a code of ethics is crucial to a profession … because it functions externally as one of the bargaining chips to earn public trust and internally as an indispensable tool for internal control.” (Tseng, 1992, pp. 48-49) The theory of control goes beyond internal characteristics and looks at how the occupation relates to other components of the labor market in the society. In the present study the researcher revises Tseng’s model so as to reflect the recent development of court interpreting as an emerging profession in Taiwan.

Taking a retrospective look at court interpreting in Taiwan, this researcher divides Taiwanese judicial history into five periods: (1)early period(including the indigenous self-governance, the Dutch-Spanish era, and the Koxinga regime);(2)Qing dynasty (1683-1895);(3)Japanese colonial era (1896-1945);(4)martial law under the Kuomintang (KMT)(1946-2000); and(5)modern times. During the early period, interpreting was required for signing treaties and publicizing local orders made by foreign rulers. With the advent of globalization and increasing awareness of human rights in the late twentieth century, interpreters in Taiwan have become distinguished by their diversity of language combinations compared with those of previous periods. As the concept of human rights gains increasing importance, court interpreters are required to undergo continuous training and follow a set of ethical standards. This trend has spurred the establishment of a national professional association of court interpreters.

In this study the researcher explores the development of court interpreting from the perspectives of dialogue interpreting and interpreting professionalization. She also discusses the impact colonialism has had on court interpreting in Taiwan. The researcher hopes the results will serve as useful reference material for the interpreting field as a whole.