Investigating the Cross-Cultural Impact: An Analysis of Turkish Translations of Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) through Reiss’s Text Typology

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 42 Sayı: 2, 1017 - 1034, 31.12.2023

Hatice Delibaş

https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.1322430

Öz

The research investigates Turkish translations of Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) from the perspective of Reiss’s text typology. CEFR is a comprehensive document defining language teaching, learning objectives and providing testing tools designed in 2001 with the impact of multiculturalism and multilingualism notions. The document has been translated into 40 different languages and applied globally since then. Turkish is one of the languages in which CEFR was translated. These translations, on the other hand, are crucial for informing target audience regarding development and innovation in language learning, assessment and curriculum. This study aims to shed light on cross-cultural impact of CEFR by analysing its Turkish translations through Reiss’s text typology. The study adopts the method of document analysis to examine Turkish translations of CEFR by focusing on key terms and concepts related to language education. Based on findings of study, CEFR is an informative text in terms of text typology approach and transferred to Turkish aligned with source text in terms of its function and content. These results suggest that translators adopted a translation approach fulfilling the intended purpose of the text and demands of the target audience considering informative text type. Additionally, the findings of the study are also notable in that it offers a thorough understanding of the CEFR's cross-cultural impact in Turkish setting and a systematic approach for translators regarding text types. The research is expected to contribute to translation studies and enhance education practices and policies related to foreign language in Turkey with the insights it offers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), Text Typology, Turkish Translations of CEFR, Cross Cultural Impact, Foreign Language Education.

Kaynakça

• Aksoy, B. (1999). Sosyal bilimler metinleri çevirisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(2), 21-27.
• Bühler, K. (1984). Theory of language: The representational function of knowledge. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Byram, M., & Parmenter, L. (2012). The common European framework of reference. The Globalisation of Language Education Policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters
• Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge/ Massachusettes: M.I.T press.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches. New York: Sage.
• Çelik, S. (2013). Plurilingualism, pluriculturalism, and the CEFR: Are Turkey’s foreign language objectives reflected in classroom instruction? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1872-1879.
• Delibaş, M. (2013). Yabancı dil öğretiminde ortak eylem odaklı yaklaşıma göre sınıf içi hedef ve etkinliklerin hazırlanması (Yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisi). Turkish Studies - International Periodical for The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 8(10), 241-249.
• Europe, C. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Europe, C. (2009). Diller için Avrupa ortak başvuru metni öğrenme-öğretme-değerlendirme. Ministry of National Education Board of Education.
• Even-Zohar, I. (2002). The making of culture repertoire and the role of transfer. S. Paker içinde, Translations: (s. 166-175). İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
• Günday, R., & Aycan, A. (2018). Yabancı dil öğreniminde kültürlerası iletişim becerisi edinimi. International Journal of Languages Education and Teaching, 6(3), 533-545.
• Harris, R. A. (1993). The linguistic wars. Oxford University Press.
• Hazar, E. (2021). The influence of the CEFR in Turkish national curriculum. African Educational Research Journal, 551-561.
• Lefevere, S. B. (1990). Translation, history and culture. London: Pinter.
• Monday, J. (2016). Introducing translation studies. London & New York: Routledge. 1 Pym, A. (2003). Redefining translation competence in an electronic age. In defense of a minimalist approach. Meta, XLVIII, (4), 481-497.
• Reiss, K. (1989). Text types, translation types and translation assessment. A. Chesterman, Readings in Translation
• Theory (A. Chesterman, Trs., 105-115). Helsinki: Finn Lectura. Reiss, K. (2000). Text types, translation types and translation. L. Venuti in, the Translation Studies Reader (160-171). London & New York: Routledge.
• Reiss, K. (2000). Translation Criticism: Potential and limitations. (E. Rhodes, trns.) Manchester: St. Jerome.
• Sahib, F. H., & Stapa, M. (2021). The Impact of Implementing the Common European Framework of Reference on Language Education: A Critical Review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(11), 644–660.
• Venuti, L. (1995). Translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. New York: Routledge.
• Vermeer, H. J. (1996). A skopos theory of translation. Verlag: Heidelberg.
• Vermeer, H. J., & Reiss, K. (2013). Towards a general theory of translational action. Routledge.
• Wallerstein, I. (1981). Concepts in the social sciences: problems of translation. G. Rose (Dü.) in, Translation Spectrum: Essays in Theory and Practice (88-98). Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Zheng, W. (2017). Translation strategies for text of science and technology. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 96, 32-36.