The Norms of Sign Language Interpreting in Turkey: A pre-investigational study on the field

İmren Gökce

doi:10.37599/ceviri.533868

Derleme

The Norms of Sign Language Interpreting in Turkey: A pre-investigational study on the field

Yıl 2018, , 165 - 180, 22.02.2019

İmren Gökce

https://doi.org/10.37599/ceviri.533868

Öz

Sign language interpreting is a developing profession, but an emerging study field in Turkey al- though it has been recognized as a profession as of 2006, and sign language interpreters have been hired to offer free interpreting services at social service offices since 2007. Currently, most of the interpreters of Turkish Sign Language are CODAs (Child of Deaf Adults), and there is not a university degree program for training new interpreters. Moreover, it has received little attention by Turkish translation and interpreting scholars so far. This paper aims to share the preliminary findings of an ongoing study in which the author provides detailed information on historical and current dynamics of Turkish Deaf community and sign language interpreting, and explores the current norms of sign language interpreting in Turkey as well as the roles adopted by Turkish sign language interpreters, which have been investigated through semi-structured interviews with seventeen interpreters. This paper, however, does not include the research data and final conclusions since they are still being processed by the researcher, rather it includes the literature review on the role of the sign language interpreter and the theoretical framework which rests on the concept of translation norms of Gideon Toury (1995). The translation norms of Toury (1995) have been adapted to the field of sign language interpreting in Turkey taking a basis of Moira Inghilleri’s work (2003) where she examines interpreted asylum interviews. Although larger research data are limitedly included in this paper due to space restrictions, the current paper indicates that norms govern how sign language interpreters perceive their roles, and how this affects the professional status of the interpreters. This study also aspires to contribute to the field by demonstrating how research and practice on sign language interpreting can benefit from translation theories, especially, in countries like Turkey where establishing sign language interpreting undergraduate programs is a topic of discussion nowadays.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sign Language Interpreting, Translation Norms, The Role of the Interpreter

Kaynakça

Armstrong, D.F. & Wilcox, S. (2003). Origins of Sign Languages. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language and Education (305-318). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1992). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Conker, N. (2017). The Professionalization of Sign Language Interpreting in Turkey: Interpreter Training and Public Interpreting Services (Unpublished MA Thesis). Boğaziçi University.
Demirdağ, H.E. & Bozacı, H.E. (2015). İşaret dili ve İşaret Dili Çevirisiyle İşitme Engelli Bireylerin Topluma Katılımlarının Desteklenmesi. In Pelin Şulha (Ed.), Sözden Temsile Çeviribilim (78-92). Kolektif. Engin, A. (Ed.) (2016). Ellerle Konuşmak: Türk İşaret Dili Araştırmaları. İstanbul: KÜY.
Grbic, N. (1997). About Helpers and Experts: The changing social practice of sign language interpreting. In C. B. Roy & J. Napier (Eds.), The Sign Language Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 338- 349). John Benjamins.
Inghilleri, M. (2003). Habitus, field and discourse: Interpreting as a socially situated activity. Target International Journal of Translation Studies, 15(2), 243-268. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/ target.15.2.03ing.
Mayberry, R.I. (2007). When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 537-549. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0142716407070294.
McIntire, M. & Sanderson, G. (1995). Bye-Bye! Bi-Bi! Questions of empowerment and role. In C. B. Roy & J. Napier (Ed.), The Sign Language Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 327-337). John Benjamins.
Metzger, M. (1999). Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Mindess, A. (2014). Reading Between The Signs: Intercultural communication for sign language interpreters. London: Intercultural Press.
Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R. M. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Social representations (pp. 3-69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oral, Z. A. (2015). Some Strategies Employed in The Translation of Non-equivalent Word in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Hacettepe University Journal of Faculty of Letters, 32, 2.
Oral, A.Z. (2016). Türk İşaret Dili Çevirisi. Ankara: Siyasal.
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 284-310). Cambridge University Press.
Roy, C. B. (1992). A sociolinguistic analysis of the interpreter’s role in simultaneous talk in face-to- face interpreted dialogue. In C. B. Roy & J. Napier (Eds.), The Sign Language Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 297-326). John Benjamins.
Roy, C. B. (1993). The Problem with Definitions, Descriptions, and the Role Metaphors of Interpreters. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The Interpreting Studies Reader (2002, pp. 344-353). Routledge.
Roy, C.B. & Napier, J. (Eds.) (2015). The Sign Language Interpreting Studies Reader. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Stokoe, W. C. (1972). Semiotics And Human Sign Languages. Paris: Mouton.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Benjamins.
Traxler, C.B. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test (9th edition): National norming and performance standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 337-348. doi:10.1093/deafed/5.4.337.
Witter-Merithew, A. (1986). Claiming Our Destiny. In C. B. Roy & J. Napier (Eds.), The Sign Language Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 292-297). John Benjamins.

Türkiye’de İşaret Dili Tercümanlığının Normları: Alan Üzerine Bir Ön İnceleme

Yıl 2018, , 165 - 180, 22.02.2019

İmren Gökce

https://doi.org/10.37599/ceviri.533868

Öz

2006 yılından beri meslek olarak tanınmasına ve de 2007 yılından itibaren sosyal hizmetler bünyesinde ücretsiz çeviri hizmeti sunmak adına işaret dili tercümanlarının devlet tarafından işe alınma- sına rağmen, ülkemizde işaret dili tercümanlığı gelişmekte olan bir meslek dalı olmakla birlikte daha yeni yeni gündeme gelen bir araştırma alanıdır. Günümüzde, Türkiye’deki işaret dili tercümanlarının çoğunun KODA (Sağır Bireylerin Çocukları) olmasının yanı sıra yeni tercümanlar yetiştiren bir üniversite bölümü de bulunmamaktadır. Bununla birlikte işaret dili tercümanlığı, çeviribilim alanında çalışan Türk akademisyenlerin çok azının ilgisini bu zamana kadar çekmiştir. Bu makale yazarın devam etmekte olan tez çalışmasının ön bulgularını paylaşmayı amaçlamaktadır. Söz konusu yüksek lisans tezinde yazar, Türk Sağır toplumu ve işaret dili tercümanlığının geçmiş ve günümüzdeki dinamikleri ile ilgili detaylı bilgi vermekle birlikte Türkiye’de işaret dili tercümanlığı alanında hüküm süren mevcut normları ortaya koymaktadır ve on yedi işaret dili tercümanı ile yapılan yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ile elde edilen veriler ışığında işaret dili tercümanlarının benimsedikleri rolleri tartışmaktadır. Ancak söz konusu tez üzerinde çalışmaların devam etmesi sebebiyle araştırma verileri kapsamlı olarak bu makaleye dahil edilmese de, makale tez çalışmasında kullanılan işaret dili tercümanının rolü ile ilgili literatür incelemesini ve Gideon Toury’nin (1995) çeviri normlarına dayanan kuramsal çerçevesini içermektedir. Bu çalışmada Toury’nin çeviri normları, Moira Inghilleri’nin (2003) bu kavramları sözlü çeviriye uyarladığı çalışması örnek alınarak kullanılmıştır. Alan ve zaman limiti sebebiyle bahsi geçen daha büyük araştırma verilerinin sınırlı kısmının verilmiş olmasına rağmen bu çalışma, mevcut normların işaret dili tercümanlarının kendi rollerini algılama şekillerini nasıl yönlendirdiği ve bu durumun tercümanların mesleki konumu üzerindeki etkileri ile ilgili böyle bir çalışmanın yapılabileceğini göstermektedir. Bu çalışma işaret dili tercümanlığı alanındaki araştırma ve uygulamaların çeviribilim kuramlarından faydalanabileceğini göstermesi ile de özellikle üniversitelerde işaret dili tercümanlığı bölümlerinin açılmasının bu günlerde tartışma aşamasında olduğu Türkiye gibi ülkelerde alana katkı sağlamayı hedeflemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İşaret Dili Tercümanlığı, Çeviri Normları, Çevirmenin Rolü

Kaynakça

Armstrong, D.F. & Wilcox, S. (2003). Origins of Sign Languages. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language and Education (305-318). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1992). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Conker, N. (2017). The Professionalization of Sign Language Interpreting in Turkey: Interpreter Training and Public Interpreting Services (Unpublished MA Thesis). Boğaziçi University.
Demirdağ, H.E. & Bozacı, H.E. (2015). İşaret dili ve İşaret Dili Çevirisiyle İşitme Engelli Bireylerin Topluma Katılımlarının Desteklenmesi. In Pelin Şulha (Ed.), Sözden Temsile Çeviribilim (78-92). Kolektif. Engin, A. (Ed.) (2016). Ellerle Konuşmak: Türk İşaret Dili Araştırmaları. İstanbul: KÜY.
Grbic, N. (1997). About Helpers and Experts: The changing social practice of sign language interpreting. In C. B. Roy & J. Napier (Eds.), The Sign Language Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 338- 349). John Benjamins.
Inghilleri, M. (2003). Habitus, field and discourse: Interpreting as a socially situated activity. Target International Journal of Translation Studies, 15(2), 243-268. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/ target.15.2.03ing.
Mayberry, R.I. (2007). When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 537-549. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0142716407070294.
McIntire, M. & Sanderson, G. (1995). Bye-Bye! Bi-Bi! Questions of empowerment and role. In C. B. Roy & J. Napier (Ed.), The Sign Language Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 327-337). John Benjamins.
Metzger, M. (1999). Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Mindess, A. (2014). Reading Between The Signs: Intercultural communication for sign language interpreters. London: Intercultural Press.
Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R. M. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Social representations (pp. 3-69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oral, Z. A. (2015). Some Strategies Employed in The Translation of Non-equivalent Word in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Hacettepe University Journal of Faculty of Letters, 32, 2.
Oral, A.Z. (2016). Türk İşaret Dili Çevirisi. Ankara: Siyasal.
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 284-310). Cambridge University Press.
Roy, C. B. (1992). A sociolinguistic analysis of the interpreter’s role in simultaneous talk in face-to- face interpreted dialogue. In C. B. Roy & J. Napier (Eds.), The Sign Language Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 297-326). John Benjamins.
Roy, C. B. (1993). The Problem with Definitions, Descriptions, and the Role Metaphors of Interpreters. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The Interpreting Studies Reader (2002, pp. 344-353). Routledge.
Roy, C.B. & Napier, J. (Eds.) (2015). The Sign Language Interpreting Studies Reader. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Stokoe, W. C. (1972). Semiotics And Human Sign Languages. Paris: Mouton.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Benjamins.
Traxler, C.B. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test (9th edition): National norming and performance standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 337-348. doi:10.1093/deafed/5.4.337.
Witter-Merithew, A. (1986). Claiming Our Destiny. In C. B. Roy & J. Napier (Eds.), The Sign Language Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 292-297). John Benjamins.

Toplam 21 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil	İngilizce
Bölüm	Makaleler
Yazarlar	İmren Gökce Bu kişi benim 0000-0003-3642-2574
Yayımlanma Tarihi	22 Şubat 2019
Yayımlandığı Sayı	Yıl 2018

Kaynak Göster

APA	Gökce, İ. (2019). The Norms of Sign Language Interpreting in Turkey: A pre-investigational study on the field. Çeviribilim Ve Uygulamaları Dergisi(25), 165-180. https://doi.org/10.37599/ceviri.533868