Kendi Kendine Çeviri Perspektifinden Özetlerin İncelenmesi: Etken/Edilgen Yapı ve Zaman Kiplerinin Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Derlem Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışma, doktora tezlerinde İngilizce ve Türkçe özetlerini yazarların kendileri tarafından yapılan çevirileri üzerinden erek dilde ve kaynak dilde yapısal öğelerin (etken/edilgen yapı ve zaman kipleri) kullanımını incelemek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Bu amaçla, İngilizce-Türkçe Mütercim ve Tercümanlık bölümünde okuyan öğrenciler tarafından yazılan doktora tezleri, Türkiye Yükseköğretim Kurulu (YÖK) Ulusal Tez Merkezi tarafından çevrimiçi olarak yayınlanan tez koleksiyonlarından elde edilmiştir. Bu çalışma kapsamında toplam 144 doktora tezi özeti incelenmiştir. Çalışmada kullanılan derlem, 72 İngilizce özet ve bunların Türkçe çevirilerini ve 72 Türkçe özet ve bunların İngilizce çevirilerini içermektedir. Özetler ve çevirileri, The Phrase platformu aracılığıyla cümle-cümle olacak şekilde hizalanmıştır. The Phrase platformu, kapsamlı bir çeviri yönetim sistemidir ve paralel metinlerin hizalanmasını da sağlamaktadır. Excel formatında elde edilen belgede etiketleme yöntemi kullanılarak veri analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu çalışma, özellikle aktif/pasif yapıların ve çeşitli zamanların hedef dile nasıl çevrildiğine dair genel bir tablo sunmaya odaklanmıştır. Analiz, İngilizce-Türkçe dillerinde, farklı çeviri yönlerinde etken/edilgen yapıların ve zaman kiplerinin nasıl dönüştürüldüğü ve çevrildiğine dair bir analiz sunmaktadır. Bulgular, çeviri yönlerine bağlı olarak etken/edilgen yapıların ve zaman kiplerinin kullanımında tutarlı değişimler olduğunu ortaya koymakta; çevirmenlerin erek akademik kültürün retorik gelenekleri ve üslup normlarıyla uyumunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Derlem dilbilimi
• Paralel derlemler
• The Phrase TMS
• özet çevirisi
• İngilizce-Türkçe dil çifti
• Etken/edilgen yapı
• Zaman kipleri

Examining Abstracts from Self-Translation Perspective: A Corpus-Based Study on the Use of Active/Passive Voice and Tenses

Abstract

The present study aimed to examine the use of structural elements (active/passive voice and tenses) while translating from the source language to the target language in the self-translation of English and Turkish abstracts in doctoral dissertations. To this end, the doctoral dissertations written by students at the department of Translation and Interpreting were obtained from the collections of dissertations published online by the National Thesis Centre of the Council of Higher Education (CoHE) in Türkiye. A total of 144 abstracts of doctoral dissertations were examined within the scope of the present study. The corpus included 72 English abstracts with their Turkish translations, and 72 Turkish abstracts with their English translations. The abstracts and their translations were aligned sentence by sentence through The Phrase platform. The Phrase platform is a comprehensive translation management system and it also provides an alignment of the parallel texts. Data analysis was performed tagging on the document obtained in Excel format. This study particularly focused on providing a general picture of how active/passive voice and various tenses were self-translated into the target language. The analysis provides a pattern of how different structures including active/passive voice, and tenses, in the English-Turkish language are transformed and translated depending on the direction of translation. The findings reveal consistent shifts in the use of active/passive voice and tense structures across translation directions, highlighting translators’ alignment with the rhetorical conventions and stylistic norms of the target academic culture.

Keywords

• Corpus linguistics
• Parallel corpora
• The Phrase TMS
• Abstract translation
• English-Turkish language pair
• Active/passive voice
• Tenses

References

1. Alzuhairy, U. (2016). The frequency of the twelve verb tenses in academic papers written by native speakers (Master’s thesis, University of Central Florida). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/5282
2. Anthony, L. (2024). Addressing the challenges of data-driven learning through corpus tool design – In conversation with Laurence Anthony. In P. Crosthwaite (Ed.), Corpora for language learning: Bridging the Research-practice divide. Routledge.
3. Bada, E., & Ulum, Ö. G. (2018). Utilization of active and passive constructions in English academic writing. Journal of Human Sciences, 15(1), 413–421.
4. Barasa, D. (2024). Demystifying the discourse: Techniques to effective academic writing. Journal of Research and Academic Writing, 1(1), Article 1.
5. Chatzidimitriou, I. (2009). Self-translation as minorization process: Nancy Huston’s Limbes/Limbo. SubStance, 38(2), 22–42.
6. Council of Higher Education. (n.d.). Tez teslim kılavuzu [Thesis submission guide]. National Thesis Center. Retrieved on July 1, 2025, from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezTeslimKilavuz.jsp
7. Çetin, A., & Güneş, S. (2023). A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of the Turkish doctoral dissertations completed in the fields of social sciences and humanities. Journal of University Research, 6(2), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.32339/uad.1308131
8. Demir, D. (2022). Eğitim bilimleri makale özetlerinin sözbilimsel yapısı, kip ve çatı özellikleri. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 13(3), [page range]. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1037078

9. Emeksiz, Z. E. (2015). Stance taking and passive voice in Turkish academic discourse. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 11(2), 13–22.
10. Ghadessy, M., & Gao, Y. (2001). Simplification as a universal feature of the language of translation. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 11(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.11.1.07gha
11. Halverson, S. L. (2003). The cognitive basis of translation universals. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 15(2), 197–241. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.15.2.02hal
12. Hinkel, E. (2004). Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr132oa
13. Horbowicz, P., Skrzypek, D., Sobkowiak, M., & Kołaczek, N. (2019). The use of passive voice in academic writing. Evidence from Danish, Norwegian and Swedish as L1 and L2. Folia Scandinavica Posnaniensia, 26, 4–26.
14. Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
15. Inzunza, E. R. (2020). Reconsidering the use of the passive voice in scientific writing. The American Biology Teacher, 82(8), 563–565.
16. Kachru, B. B. (1997). World Englishes and English-using communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 66–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500003287
17. Károly, A. (2022). Translation and dealing with “the other” in scholarly research and publishing: A call for more reflexivity. Apples - Journal of Applied Language Studies, 16(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.47862/apples.114741
18. Klenbort, I., & Anisfeld, M. (1974). Markedness and perspective in the interpretation of the active and passive voice. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26(2), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747408400404
19. Kwary, D. A., Kirana, A., & Artha, A. F. (2017). The distribution of verb tenses and modals in journal articles’ abstracts. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 35(3), Article 3.
20. Lubis, M. Y. A., Miranti, R., & Lubis, Y. (2024). Passive voice and active voice in sentence structure. Journal of Psychology, Counseling and Education, 2(1), 59-64. https://doi.org/10.58355/psy.v2i1.20
21. Ozdemir, M. (2017). Self-translation as testimony: Halide Edib rewrites The Turkish Ordeal. In O. Castro, S. Mainer, & S. Page (Eds.), Self-translation and power: Negotiating identities in European multilingual contexts (pp. 71–92). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50781-5_4
22. Pollock, T. G., & Bono, J. E. (2013). From the Editors: Being Scheherazade: The Importance of Storytelling in Academic Writing. The Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 629–634.
23. Râbacov, G. (2013). Self-translation as mediation between cultures. International Journal of Communication Research, 3(1), 66–69.
24. Robin, E. (2017). Translation universals revisited. FORUM. Revue Internationale d’interprétation et de Traduction / International Journal of Interpretation and Translation, 15(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.15.1.03rob
25. Saidero, D. (2020). Self-translation as translingual and transcultural transcreation. Oltreoceano – Rivista sulle migrazioni, 16, Article 16.
26. Seoane, E., & Hundt, M. (2018). Voice Alternation and Authorial Presence: Variation across Disciplinary Areas in Academic English. Journal of English Linguistics, 46(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424217740938
27. Sorato, D., & Zavala-Rojas, D. (2022). Sentence alignment of bilingual survey texts applying a metadata-aware strategy. In P. Rosso, V. Basile, R. Martínez, E. Métais, & F. Meziane (Eds.), Natural language processing and information systems (pp. 469–476). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08473-7_43
28. Zasiekin, S. (2016). Understanding translation universals. Babel, 62(1), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.62.1.07zas
29. Zufferey, S., & Cartoni, B. (2014). A multifactorial analysis of explicitation in translation. Target, 26(3), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.26.3.02zuf