Andaş çeviride çeviri yönünün performansa ve strateji kullanımına etkisi: İngilizce-Türkçe dil çifti

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, çeviri yönünün İngilizceden Türkçeye (B>A) ve Türkçeden İngilizceye (A>B) andaş çeviri yaparken öğrencilerin andaş çeviri performansları ve strateji tercihleri üzerindeki etkisini incelemektir. Örneklem grubunu 14 öğrencinin oluşturduğu bu çalışmada betimleyici ve nitel metot kullanılmıştır. Öğrencilerin her iki dildeki çevirileri çalışmanın amacına uygun olarak veri toplamak amacıyla incelenmiştir. Öğrencilerden bir İngilizce ve bir Türkçe konuşmayı çevirmeleri istenmiştir. Anketleri aracılığıyla öğrencilerin dil becerileri ve seviyeleri, çeviri sırasında kullandıkları stratejiler ve yaptıkları çevirilerin öz değerlendirmeleri hakkında bilgi edinilmiştir. Öncelikle, öğrencilerin her iki yöndeki çevirileri çeviri kalitesi kıstasları açısından iki dış değerlendirici tarafından değerlendirilmiştir. Önerme analizi kullanılarak çeviri içeriğin doğruluğu değerlendirilmiştir. Öğrencilerin andaş çeviri esnasında strateji kullanımı ve tercihlerine yönelik veri, öğrencilerin strateji kullanımı anketine verdikleri cevaplardan toplanmıştır. Bu çalışmanın sonuçları, çeviri kalitesi açısından öğrencilerin çeviri performansları arasında B>A çeviri yönü lehine belirgin bir fark olduğunu göstermektedir. Öte yandan, önerme analizi, öğrencilerin A>B çeviri yönünde daha fazla önermeyi doğru çevirdiklerini göstermiştir. Öğrencilerin strateji tercihleri açısından ise belirgin bir fark gözlenmemiştir. Böylesi çok boyutlu bir çalışmanın andaş çeviride çeviri yönü konusundaki ileriki çalışmalar için faydalı olacağı umulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Andaş çeviride çeviri yönü,strateji kullanımı,çeviri kalitesi,önerme analizi

The effect of directionality on performance and strategy use in simultaneous interpreting: A case of English-Turkish language pair

Abstract

The aim of this study is to explore the effect of directionality on the performances and strategy preferences of student interpreters during simultaneous interpreting (SI) tasks while interpreting from English to Turkish (B>A) and from Turkish to English (A>B). Descriptive method was used in this study, in which the sample group was composed of 14 interpreting students; thus, their interpreting outputs were analyzed to gather the related data for the purpose of the study. The participants of the study were asked to interpret one English speech and one Turkish speech; they were inquired about their language background, strategy uses during the tasks and self-assessment of their interpreting performances by means of questionnaires. Interpretations in both directions were assessed by two external raters on the basis of quality criteria. Another assessment was conducted by using propositional analysis. The data related to strategy preferences of the subjects during SI tasks in different directions were collected from the remarks of the subjects in strategy use questionnaire. The results indicate that there was a significant difference between the interpreting performances of participants in terms of interpreting quality in the favor of B>A direction. On the other hand, the propositional analysis revealed that the subjects rendered more accurate propositions in the direction of A>B. No significant difference was observed between the strategy preferences of the subjects. It is expected that the study will prove to be useful for further studies on directionality in the field of SI.

Keywords

• Directionality in simultaneous interpreting,strategy use,interpreting quality,propositional analysis

References

1. Barik, H. C. (1973). Simultaneous interpretation: Temporal and quantitative data. Language and Speech, 16 (3), 237-270.
2. Barik, H. C. (1975). Simultaneous interpretation: Qualitative and linguistic data. Language and Speech, 18, 272-297.
3. Barik, H. C. (1994). A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation (pp. 121-139). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
4. Bartlomiejczyk, M. (2004). Simultaneous interpreting A-B vs. B-A from the interpreters’ standpoint. In G. Hansen & K. Malkmjaer & D. Gile (Eds.), Claims, changes and challenges in translation studies: Selected contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001 (pp. 239-249). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
5. Bartlomiejczyk, M. (2006). Strategies of Simultaneous Interpreting and Directionality. Interpreting, 8 (2), 149-174.
6. Bovair, S. & Kieras, D. (1985). A guide to propositional analysis for research on technical prose. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 315-364). Hillsdale, N. J.:Erlbaum.
7. Campbell, S. (1998). Translation into the Second Language. London and New York: Longman.
8. Chang, C. (2005). Directionality in Chinese/English simultaneous interpreting: impact on performance and strategy use. (Unpublished Doctorate Dissertation). The University of Texas, Austin.

9. Chang, C. C., & Wu, M. M. C. (2014). Non-Native English at International Conferences: Perspectives from Chinese-English Conference Interpreters in Taiwan. Interpreting 16 (2), 169-190.
10. Chernov, G. V. (2004). Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
11. Christoffels, I. (2004). Cognitive studies in simultaneous interpreting. Netherlands: PrintPartners Ipskamp.
12. Dawrant, A. C. (1996). Word order in Chinese to English simultaneous interpretation: An initial exploration. (Unpublished thesis). Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei.
13. De Bot, K. (2000). Simultaneous interpreting as language production. In B. E. Dimitrova & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting (pp. 65-88). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
14. Doğan, A. (2009a). Sözlü çeviri çalışmaları ve uygulamaları (2nd ed.) Ankara: SFN.
15. Doğan, A. (2009b). Metacognitive tools in Interpreting Training: A pilot study. Journal of Faculty of Letter, 26 (1), 69-84.
16. Donato, V. (2003). Strategies adopted by student interpreters in SI: A comparison between English-Italian and the German-Italian language-pairs. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 12, 101-134.
17. Donovan, C. (2004). European Masters Project Group: Teaching Simultaneous Interpretation into a B Language: Preliminary Findings. Interpreting, 6 (2), 205-216.
18. Donovan, C. (2011). The Consequences for Training of the Growing Use of English.” In M. Garant and M. Pakkala-Weckstöm (Eds.), Current Trends in Training European Translators and Interpreters: A Selection of Seminar Papers from ESSE10 (pp. 5-20). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
19. Donovan. C. (2003). Survey of user expectations and needs. In Teaching simultaneous interpretation into a ‘B’ language: EMCI Workshop proceedings (pp.2-11). EMCI.
20. Dose, S. (2017). Assessing directionality in context. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, 47, 67-87.
21. Earls, S., Doğan, F., Darbutaite, R. & Has, B. (2009). Simultaneous interpretation between languages with inverse structure. (Unpublished MA Thesis). University of Geneva, Geneva.
22. Fabbro, F. &Gran L. (1997) Neurolinguistic aspects of simultaneous interpretation. In. Y. Gambier, D. Gile & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research (pp. 9-27). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
23. Gile, D. (1990). Scientific research vs. personal theories in the investigation of interpretation. In L. Gran & C. Taylor (Eds.), Aspects of applied and experimental research on conference interpretation (pp. 28-41). Udine: Campanotto.
24. Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
25. Gile, D. (1997). Conference interpreting as a cognitive management problem. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpretation (pp. 196-214). London: Sage Publications.
26. Gile, D. (1999). Testing the effort models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting: A contribution. Hermes: Journal of Linguistics, 23, 153-172.
27. Gile, D. (2005). Directionality in conference interpreting: A cognitive view. In R. Godijns & M. Hinderdael (Eds.), Directionality in interpreting: The ‘retour’ or the native (pp. 9-26). Gent: Communication and Cognition.
28. Golato, P. (1998). Syllabification processes among French-English bilinguals: A further study of the limits of bilingualism. (Unpublished dissertation). University of Texas, Austin USA.
29. Gumul, E. (2006). Explicitation in Simultaneous Interpreting: A Strategy or A By-Product of Language Mediation?, Across Languages and Cultures, 7 (2), 171-190.
30. Hurford, J. R. & Heasley, B. (1987). Semantics: A Coursebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Hyönä, J., Tommola, J., & Alaja, A. (1995). Pupil dilation as a measure of processing load in simultaneous interpreting and other language tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(A), 598-612.
32. Ilg, G. (1978). L’apprentissagge de l’interprétation simultanée de l’allemand vers le français. Paralléles, 1, 69-99.
33. Janis, M. (2002). From the A language to the B language: What is the difference? In G Garzone, P. Mead & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Perspectives on interpreting (pp. 53-64). Forli: Biblioteca della Scuola Superiore di Lingue Moderne per Interpreti e Traduttori Forli.
34. Kalina, S. (1991). Discourse processing and interpreting strategies: An approach to the teaching of interpreting. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting: Training, talent and experience (pp. 251-257). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
35. Kelly, D. et al. (2003). La direccionalidad en traduccion e interpretacion: perspectivas teoricas, professionals y didacticas. Granada: Atrio.
36. Kintsch, W. & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a Model of Text Comprehension and Production. Psychology Review, 85, 363-394.
37. Kirchhoff, H. (1976). Simultaneous interpreting: interdependence of variables in the interpreting process, interpreting models and interpreting strategies. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (p. 110-119). London/New York: Routledge.
38. Kopczynski, A. (1996). Conference interpreter: A ghost or an intruder? In J. Hartzell (Ed.), Evaluating an interpreter’s performance (pp. 71-78). Poland: Lodz University.
39. Kurz, I. & Farber, B. (2003). Anticipation in German-English simultaneous interpreting. Forum, 1(2), 123-150.
40. Kurz, I. (1994). A look into the ‘black box’-EEG probability mapping during mental simultaneous interpreting. In M. S. Hornby, F. Pöchhacker & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation studies: An interdiscipline (pp.189-208). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
41. Kurz, I. 1993. Conference interpretation: Expectations by different user groups. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 5: 13-21.
42. Lambert, S. (1992). Shadowing. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 4, 15-24.
43. Lee, Y. H. (2003). Comparison of error frequency in simultaneous interpretation A to B and B to A (Korean-English). (Unpublished DEA (pre-doctoral) thesis). University of Geneva, Ecole de Traduction et Interpretation, Geneva.
44. Lim, H., O. (2005). Working into the B Language: The Condoned Taboo? Meta, 50 (4).
45. Liu, M. (2008). How do experts interpret? Implications from research in interpreting studies and cognitive science. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research (pp.159-177). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
46. Martin, A. (2005). Interpreting from A to B: A Spanish case study. Communication & Cognition, 38 (1 & 2), 83-100.
47. Minns, P. (2002). The teaching of interpreting into B: Some conclusions gathered from 25 years’ training experience. Conference Interpretation & Translation 4(2), 29-40.
48. Namy, C. (1978) Reflections on the training of simultaneous interpreters: A meta-linguistic approach. In D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication. New York: Plenum Press.
49. Opdenhoff, J. H. (2011). Interpreting quality in the light of directionality: A study on the interpreters’ perspective. Paper presented in the Second International Conference on Interpreting Quality.
50. Padilla, P. et al (1995). Cognitive processes of memory in simultaneous interpretation. In J. Tommola (Ed.), Topics In Interpreting Research (pp. 61-73), Turku: Painosalama OY.
51. Pavlovic, N. (2007). Directionality in translation and interpreting practice. Report on a questionnaire survey in Croatia. In A. Pym, & A. Perekrestenko (Eds.), Translation Research Project 1 (pp. 79-95), Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.
52. Pöchhacker F. & Shlesinger M. (Eds.). (2002). Introduction. The Interpreting Studies Reader (pp.1-12). London & New York: Routledge.
53. Pöchhacker F. (2004). Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.
54. Riccardi, A. (2002b). Translation and interpretation. In A. Riccardi (Ed.), Translation studies: Perspectives on an emerging discipline (pp.75-91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55. Setton, R. (1999). Simultaneous interpreting: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
56. Snell-Hornby, M. (2000). McLanguage: The identity of English as an issue in translation today. In M., Grosman, et al. (Eds.). Translation into Non-Mother Tongues in Professional Practise and Training. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
57. Snelling, D. (1992). Strategies for simultaneous interpreting from Romance languages into English. Udine: Campanotto Editore.
58. Sunnari, M. (1995). Processing Strategies in Simultaneous Interpreting: “Saying it All” vs. Synthesis. In J. Tommala (Ed.), Topics in Interpreting Research (p. 109-119). Turku: University of Turku.
59. Szabari, K. (2002). Interpreting into the B language. EMCI Workshop: Teaching simultaneous Interpretation into a “B” Language (pp. 12-19). EMCI.
60. Temizöz, Ö. (2014). Eye-Tracking Directionality In The Translation Process: A Pilot Study. İ.U. Journal of Translation Studies, 8(2014), 97-122.
61. Tommola, J. & Heleva, M. (1998). Language direction and source text complexity effects on trainee performance in simultaneous interpreting. In L. Bowker, M. Cronin, D. Kenny & J. Pearson (Eds.), Unity in diversity (pp. 177-186). Manchester: St. Jerome.
62. Tommola, J. & Laakso, T. (1997). Source text segmentation, speech rate and language direction: Effects on trainee simultaneous interpreting. In K. Klaudy & J. Kohn (Eds.), Transferre Necesse Est. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting (pp. 189-191). Budapest: Scholastica.
63. Viaggio, S. (1991). Teaching Beginners to Shut Up and Listen. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 4, 45-58.
64. Wilss, W. (1978). Syntactic Anticipation in German-english Simultaneous Interpretation. In D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language Interpretation and Communication (pp. 343-352). New York/London: Plenum Press.
65. Wu, Y. & Liao, P. (2018). Re-conceptualising interpreting strategies for teaching interpretation into a B language. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12:2, 188-206.