Ardıl Çeviride Türk Öğrencilerin Not Üretme ve Not Okuma Biçimleri

Year 2023, Issue: Çeviribilim Özel Sayısı, 216 - 242, 25.02.2023

Ebrahim Khezerlou

https://doi.org/10.29110/soylemdergi.1187146

Abstract

Ardıl tercüme kaynak ve hedef diller arasındaki sözlü çeviri modudur ve “birinin söyleyeceklerini dinlemeyi ve daha sonra konuşmayı bitirdiğinde aynı mesajı başka bir dilde yeniden üretmeyi içerir (Gillies, 2017, S. 5). Not alma, uzun ardıl tercüme sürecinde temel bir beceridir ve son derece kişiselleştirilmiş bir tarzda bir konuşmayı not alma ve ardından notlar, hafıza ve genel bilgilerin bir kombinasyonu yardımıyla orijinal konuşmayı yeniden oluşturma faaliyetini ifade eder (Albl-Mikasa, 2008; Gillies 2017). Ardıl tercümeyi Türkiye bağlamında daha iyi anlamak için bu çalışma İngilizce Mütercim Tercümanlık bölümünde okuyan 26 lisans Türk öğrencinin fikir belirleme, not üretme ve not okuma kalıplarını inceliyor. Çalışmanın verileri üç resmi sınavdan elde edildi. Sonuçlar, öğrencilerin kelime notu formunu kullanmayı diğerlerine tercih ettiklerini ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca sonuçlar üst düzey öğrenciler arasında daha iyi fikir belirleme, not üretme ve not okuma performansları olduğunu doğruladı. Dahası, öğrencilerin not okuma kalıplarının, not üretme kalıplarından daha iyi olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları, pedagojik olarak sınıflarda öğretmenler için yararlıdır ve alandaki uygulayıcılar için de pratik olarak fayda sağlıyor.

Keywords

Ardıl tercüme, not alma, not oluşturma, not okuma, Türk öğrenciler

Supporting Institution

Hayır

Project Number

Hayır

Thanks

Hayır

Note-producing and Note-reading Patterns of Turkish Students in Consecutive Interpreting

Abstract

Consecutive interpreting (CI) is a mode of verbal translation between a source and target language (TL) which “involves listening to what someone has to say and then, when they have finished speaking, reproducing the same message in another language (Gillies, 2017, P. 5). Note-taking, a fundamental skill in the process of long CI, refers to the activity of jotting down a speech in a highly individualised style and then recreating the original speech by the help of a combination of notes, memory, and general knowledge (Albl-Mikasa, 2008; Gillies 2017). To better understand the expertise in the context of Turkey, the study examined the idea-identifying, note-producing, and note-reading patterns of 26 undergraduate Turkish students majoring in English Language Translation and Interpreting. The data for the study were obtained from three official exams. The results revealed a preference for the use of word note form over the other ones among the students. They also confirmed a better idea-identifying, note-producing, and note-reading performances among the high-level students. Moreover, it was found that note-reading patterns of the students were better than their note-producing ones. The findings of study are pedagogically useful for teachers in their classes and practically helpful for practitioners in the field.

Keywords

Consecutive interpreting, notetaking, note-producing, note-reading, Turkish students

Project Number

Hayır

References

• Albl-Mikasa, M. (2008). (Non-)Sense in note-taking for consecutive interpreting. Interpreting, 10(2), 197–231. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.10.2.03alb
• Chen, S. (2017). Note-taking in consecutive interpreting: New data from pen recording. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research, 9(1), 4-23. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.109201.2017.a02
• Chen, S. (2022). The process and product of note-taking and consecutive interpreting: Empirical data from professionals and students. Perspectives, 30(2), 258-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1909626
• Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Dai, W., & Xu, H. (2007). An empirical study of the features of interpreters' notes in Chinese-English consecutive interpreting: The examples of professionally trained and unprofessional interpreters). Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 39(2), 136-144.
• Dam, H. V. (2004a). Interpreters' notes: On the choice of language. Interpreting, 6(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.03dam
• Dam, H. V. (2004b). Interpreters' notes: On the choice of form and language. In G. Hansen, K. Malmkjær, & D. Gile (Eds.), Claims, changes and challenges in Translation Studies (pp. 251-261). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Dillinger, M. (1994). Comprehension during interpreting: What do interpreters know that bilinguals don’t? In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the Gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 155-189). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Ferdowsi, S. (2014). Note-taking: A required skill for students of interpreting. Review of Applied Linguistics Research. Available at: https://ralr.uk.ac.ir/article_2023_ed3b91c5e1a3c4baee2ae5df86a63b91.pdf
• Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Gile D. (2005). Directionality in conference interpreting: a cognitive view. In R. Godijns & M. Hinderdael (Eds.), The Retour or the Native? (pp. 9-26). Ghent, Communication and Cognition.
• Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (revised edition). John Benjamins.
• Gillies, A. (2017). Note-taking for consecutive interpreting: a short course (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
• Gillies, A. (2019). Consecutive Interpreting: A Short Course. London: Routledge.
• Herbert, J. (1952). The interpreter’s handbook. Geneva: Georg & Cie.
• Jones, R. (2002). Conference Interpreting Explained. St. Jerome Publishing.
• Kohn, K., & Albl-Mikasa, M. (2002). Note-taking in consecutive interpreting. On the reconstruction of an individualised language. Linguistica Antverpiensia, 1, 257- 272. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265999951
• Kriston, A. (2012). The importance of memory training in interpretation. PCTS Proceedings, 5(1), 79-86.
• Liu, M. (2008). How do experts interpret? Implications from research in Interpreting Studies and cognitive science. In Hansen, G., Chesterman, A., and Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. (eds), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile (pp. 159–177). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
• Liu, J. (2010). Note-taking characteristics of English majored undergraduates in Chinese-English consecutive interpreting: an empirical study based on students' consecutive interpreting notes. Foreign Language World, 2, 47-53.
• Lung, R. (2003). Taking notes seriously in the interpretation classroom. In Á. Collados Aís, M. M. Fernández Sánchez, & D. Gile (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: investigación (pp. 199-205). Granada: Comares.
• Marinis, T. (2011). On the nature and cause of Specific Language Impairment: A view from sentence processing and infant research. Lingua, 121, 463-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.010
• Mead, P. (2011). Co-ordinating delivery in consecutive interpreting. inTRAlinea, 13. Available at: http://www.intralinea.org/archive/article/
• Nai, R. (2020). Study on deverbalization in teaching note-taking in consecutive interpretation. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 416, 1093-1097. https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/series/assehr
• Nolan, J. (2005). Interpreting: Techniques and exercises. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• Patrie, J. C. (2004). Consecutive interpreting from English: The effective interpreting series. San Diego: DawnSign Press.
• Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge.
• Ribas, M. A. (2012). Problems and strategies in consecutive interpreting: A pilot study at two different stages of interpreter training. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 57(3), 812-835. https://doi.org/10.7202/1017092ar
• Rozan, J. F. (1956). Note-taking in consecutive interpreting (A. Gillies, Trans.). Cracow: Tertium Society for the Promotion of Language Studies.
• Seleskovitch, D. (1975). Langage, langues et mémoire. Etude de la prise de notes en interprétation consécutive. Paris: Minard.
• Seleskovitch, D. (1978). Interpreting for international conferences (trans. S. Dailey and E. N. McMillan). Washington, DC: Pen and Booth.
• Suaib, W. R., Nur, H. & Musfirah (2020). The difficulties in consecutive interpreting toward the student’s standpoint in learning interpreting subject. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 9(4), 3673-3675. Available at www.ijstr.org
• Taylor-Bouladon, V. (2011). Conference interpreting: Principles and practice (3rd Ed.). BookSurge Publishing.
• Ünal, M. (2013). Coherence in Consecutive Interpreting. A Comparative Study of Short and Long Consecutive Interpretations of English Texts into Turkish. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Surrey, United Kingdom. https://openresearch.surrey.ac.uk
• Yamada, H. (2018). Validity of note-taking for new consecutive interpreting learners: An empirical study of University interpretation courses. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(11), 1387-1396. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0811.02