İkinci Dile Çeviri Eğitimi: Değerlendirme, Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri

Year 2018, Volume: 1 Issue: 2, 187 - 202, 30.12.2018

Nilüfer Denissova

Abstract

Yetkin çevirinin yalnızca çevirmenin ana dili yönünde yapılabileceğine, ikinci/yabancı dil yönünde yapılan çevirinin kaçınılmaz olarak eksik kalacağına ilişkin yaygın görüş geçen yüzyılın sonlarına doğru yeniden tartışmaya açılmıştır. Yapılan araştırmalar, bu tür çevirinin yaygın olarak yapıldığını göstermiş ve bu bilgiler ışığında ikinci dile çeviri (2.DÇ) olgusu akademik çevrelerce mercek altına alınmaya başlanmıştır. Bu çalışmada dünyada ve ülkemizde ikinci dile çeviri etkinliğinin konumu, çeviri işletmecileri ve öğretim programları açısından ele alınarak betimlenmiştir. Bu iki kaynaktan elde edilen bilgiler, 2.DÇ’nin eğitim ve çalışma dünyasının somut bir gerçeği olduğunu göstermiştir. Bunun dışında, Türkçe-Rusça Çeviri dersinde çeviri kalitesini ölçmek için yararlanılan ve Doğruluk, Biçem, Dilbilgisi, Biçim kategorileriyle daha spesifik alt-kategoriler içeren kontrol listesi tanıtılmıştır. Alınan değerlendirme sonuçları, en yüksek notların Doğruluk ve Biçim, en düşük notların Dilbilgisi/Sözdizim, Dilbilgisi/Noktalama İşaretleri ve Biçem/Durumdil (alt)kategorilerinde kaydedildiğini göstermiştir. Bu sonuç, European Master’s in Translation (EMT) çeviri edinci modeli çerçevesinde yorumlanmıştır.

Keywords

ikinci dile çeviri, çeviri eğitimi, çeviri kalitesini ölçme, çeviri edinci

Teaching Translation into L2: Assessment, Problems and Possible Solutions

Abstract

The general belief that a competent translation can be made only into the native language of a translator, and that translation into a non-native language would inevitably be inferior was opened for the debates towards the end of the last century. Several studies have demonstrated that this kind of translation has been, as a matter of fact, quite widespread. In the first part of this study the position of translation into L2 both in the world and in Turkey is briefly described and the data indicate that translation into L2 is a solid reality of professional and educational fields. The primary purpose of this paper is to present the translation quality assessment checklist, used at Turkish-Russian Translation Course of Russian Language and Literature BA program. The checklist includes four basic categories: Accuracy, Style, Grammar and Format, with more specific subcategories in each case. The results show the highest grades in categories of Accuracy and Format and the lowest grades in (sub)categories of Grammar/Syntax, Grammar/Punctuation and Style/Register. These results were interpreted within the EMT Translation Competence Framework.

Keywords

translation into L2, translation training, translation quality assessment, translation competence

References

• Akdağ, A. I. (2015). Mütercim tercümanlık öğrencilerinde çeviri edincinin ölçülmesi ve değerlendirilmesi (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul
• Akyel, A. (1994). First language use in EFL writing: Planning in Turkish vs. planning in English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 169-196.
• Akyel, A. & Kamışlı, S. (1997). Composing in first and second languages: Possible effects of EFL writing instruction. K. Pogner (Ed.), Writing: Text and interaction. Odense working papers in language and communication (ss. 69-105).
• Beeby, A. (2000). Choosing an Empirical-Experimental Model for Investigating Translation Competence: The PACTE Model. M. Olohan (Ed.), Intercultural faultlines. Research models in translation studies I. Textual and cognitive aspects (ss. 43-55). Manchester: St Jerome.
• Campbell, S. (1998). Translation into the second language. New York: Longman.
• Chriss, R. (2006). Translation as a Profession. Raleigh, NC: Lulu Press Inc.
• Cumming, A. (1997). The testing of second-language writing. C. Clapham & D. Corson (Eds.), Language assessment, Vol. 7 of Encyclopedia of language and education (ss. 51-63). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
• Cumming, A. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 61-78.
• Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research IJES, 1(2), 1-23.
• Denissova, N. (2017). Initial steps towards a strong curriculum: Turkish/Russian translation BA programs in Turkey. M. Gammone, M. A. Icbay, H. Arslan (Eds.) International Association of Social Science Research, Book Series: Recent developments in education (ss. 125-135). ISBN 978-83-943963-3-6 (E-book)
• EMT (2017). European Master’s in translation. Competence framework 2017. Erişim tarihi:20.09.2018 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/emt_competence_fwk_2017_en_web.pdf
• Göpferich, S. (2013). Translation competence. Explaining development and stagnation from a dynamic systems perspective. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies, 25(1), 61-76.
• Gülmüş, Z. (2012). Türk-Alman İşgücü Anlaşması’nın 50. Yılında Almanya’da İletişim Dili olarak Türkçe/Turkish as a Language of Communication in Germany in the 50th Year of Turkish-German Labor Recruitment Agreement. Z. Gülmüş (Ed.) Türk-Alman İşgücü Anlaşması’nın 50. Yılında Almanya Türkleri. (ss. 125-144). Eskişehir: YUTAM.
• Hamp-Lyons, L. (Ed.) (1991). Assessing second language writing in academic contexts. Nonvood, NJ: Ablex.
• Heeb, A.H. (2016). Professional translators’ self-concepts and directionality: Indications from translation process research. The Journal of Specialized Translation, 25.
• Hurtado Albir, A. (2007). Competence-based curriculum design for training translators. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer,1(2), 163-195.
• IAPTI. (2015). Translation into a non-native language. Erişim tarihi: 05.09.2018 https://tesi.cab.unipd.it/52787/1/MICHELA_ZANESCO_2016.pdf
• Karim, K. and Nassaji, H. (2013). First language transfer in second language writing: An examination of current research. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 1(1), 117- 134.
• Neubert, A. (2000). Competence in language, in languages, and in translation. C. Schäffner & B. Adab (Eds.), Developing Translation Competence (ss. 3-18). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Newmark, Peter (1988). A Textbook of translation. Prentice Hall.
• PACTE (2003). Building a translation competence model. F. Alves (Ed.), Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in process-oriented research (ss. 43-66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• PACTE (2005). Investigating translation competence: conceptual and methodological issues. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs / Meta: Translators' Journal, 50(2), 609-619.
• PACTE (2011). Results of the validation of the PACTE translation competence model: translation project and dynamic translation index. S. O’Brien (Ed.), IATIS Yearbook 2010, Londres: Continuum.
• Pavlović, N. (2008). Directionality in translation and interpreting practice. Report on a questionnaire survey in Croatia. Pym, A., Perekrestenko, A. (Eds.): Translation research projects 1 (ss. 79-96). Tarragona, Spain: Intercultural Studies Group.
• Pavlović, Tanja. (2013). Exploring directionality in translation studies. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics. 1(2), 149-165.
• Pokorn N.K. (2016). Перевод на иностранный язык в подготовке и профессиональной деятельности переводчиков. / Translation into L2: Not a shameful but a valid practice in the market and the classroom. Вестник СПбГУ, 9(4).
• Pokorn, N. K. (2005). Challenging the traditional axioms. Translation into a non-mother tongue. Benjamins translation library, v. 62. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub.
• Pokorn, N.K. (2000). Translation into a non-mother tongue in translation theory: Deconstruction of the traditional. A. Chesterman, N. G. San Salvador and Y. Gambier (Ed.) Translation in Context (ss. 61-72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Pym, A. (2003). Redefining translation competence in an electronic age. In defense of a minimalist approach. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs / Meta: Translators' Journal, 48(4), 481-497.
• Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2009). Transferability of L1/L2 writing competence. A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT2008 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.
• Schäffner, C. (2000). Running Before Walking? Designing a Translation Programme at Undergraduate Level. C. Schäffner & B. Adab (Ed.), Developing translation competence (ss. 143-156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Sofer, M. (2009). The translator's handbook. Rockville: Schreiber Publishing.
• Tomasz Kościuczuk (2016). L2 Translation: to teach or to discourage? Journal of Translator Education and Translation Studies, (1)1, 4-22.
• Vardar, B. (2001). Dilbilimin temel kavram ve terimleri. İstanbul: Multilingual.
• Whyatt, B. & Kościuczuk, T. (2013). Translation into a non-native language: The double life of the native-speakership axiom. mTm 5, 60–79.
• Yazıcı, M. (2007). Yazılı çeviri edinci. Istanbul: Multilingual.
• Zhang, J. & Pang, Y. (2014) Mirroring, reformulation and functional translation. A complementary TEFL model for advanced learners, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(1), 52-69.
• Комиссаров, В.Н. (2002). Современное переводоведение. Москва: ЭТС [Komissarov, V.N. (2002). Contemporary translation studies. Moscow: ETS]