USER EXPECTATION SURVEYS: QUESTIONING FINDINGS AND DRAWING LESSONS FOR INTERPRETER TRAINING

Öz

Sözlü çeviri ve özellikle konferans çevirmenliği yazınında kullanıcı beklentilerinin ve gerçek çeviri ortamlarının daha iyi anlaşılmasının meslek açısından önemli olduğu sıkça vurgulanmaktadır. Bugüne kadar yapılan çalışmalarda kullanıcı beklentileri büyük oranda anket yöntemiyle araştırılmıştır. Anketler, yanıtlayanların kendi cevaplarını ifade etmesine imkan vermediğinden, anket sonuçlarının çoğu araştırmacının önceden belirlediği yanıtlardan birinin kullanıcı tarafından seçilmesiyle elde edilmiştir. Bu durum araştırmacının seçimlerini çok belirleyici hale getirmiştir. Ayrıca bu konuların meslek için önemi vurgulansa da, eğitim programlarında nasıl ele alınacakları neredeyse hiç tartışılmamıştır. Bu makalede, anket yerine kullanıcılarla birebir mülakat yöntemiyle yapılmıs bir beklenti çalışmasının sonuçlarına değinilmekte ve kullanıcı beklentilerini eğitim programlarına entegre etme konusunda bazı öneriler getirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Konferans çevirmenliği
• kullanıcı beklentileri
• anket
• mülakat
• eğitim

USER EXPECTATION SURVEYS: QUESTIONING FINDINGS AND DRAWING LESSONS FOR INTERPRETER TRAINING

Öz

Interpreting literature, especially conference interpreting literature, often emphasizes that a better understanding of user expectations and real interpreting environments is vital for the profession. Within the studies conducted so far, user expectations have generally been studied with the questionnaire method. As questionnaires do not allow the respondents to express their own answers, most questionnaire results are obtained by the user selecting the best available choice amongst a number of alternatives predetermined by the researcher. This, in turn, renders the choices of the researcher most determinant. Furthermore, although the importance of understanding user expectations for the profession are often stressed, the way user expectations can be integrated to interpreting curricula remains undiscussed. This article focuses on the results of a user expectation survey conducted by the interview method rather than a questionnaire and explores ways the views and expectations of the user can be integrated into training curricula.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Conference interpreting
• user expectations
• questionnaire
• interview
• training

Kaynakça

1. Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua 5, 231-235.
2. Cattaruza, L. and Mack, G. (1995). User Surveys in SI: A Means of Learningabout Quality and/or Raising Some Reasonable Doubt. In J. Tommola (ed.), Topics in Interpreting Research (37-49). University of Turku: Center for Translation and Interpreting.
3. Diriker, E. (2004). De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower?. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
4. Gerver, D. (1972). Simultaneous and Consecutive Interpretation and Human Information Processing. London: Social Science Research Council.
5. Gile, D. (1990). L’évaluation de la qualité de l’interprétation par les délégués: une étude de cas. The Interpreter’s Newsletter 3, 66-71.
6. Holly, Mary Louise (1989). Writing to Grow. Keeping a personal-professional journal, Portsmouth, New Hampshire:
7. Kurz, I. (1989). Conference interpreting: user expectations. In D. Hammond (ed.), Coming of Age. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. Medford: Learned Information, 143-148.
8. Kurz, I. (1993). Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups. The Interpreters’ Newsletter. 5, 13-21.

9. Kurz, I. (1996). Simultandolmetschen als Gegenstand der interdisziplinären Forschung. Wien: WUV.
10. Luker, K. (2008) Salsa Dancing in the Social Sciences: Research in an age of info-glut. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
11. Moon, Jennifer (1999) Learning Journals. A handbook for academics, students and professional development, London: Kogan Page.
12. Moser, P. (1995). Survey on Expectations of Users of Conference Interpretation. Final Report. Vienna: SRZ.
13. Pöchhacker, F. (1994). Simultandolmetschen als komplexes Handeln. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag.
14. Shepard, L. (2002). “The Role Of Assessment in a Learning Culture”. In C. Desforges and R. Fox (eds), Teaching and Learning: The Essential Readings (229-253). Blackwell Publishers.
15. Vuorikoski, A.R. (1993). Simultaneous interpretation – user experience and expectations”. In C. Picken (ed.) Translation – The Vital Link. Proceedings of the 13th FIT World Congress. Vol 1. London: The Chameleon Press, 317-327.
16. Vuorikoski, A.R. (1995). Simultaneous Interpreting as Experienced by the Audience. In P. Krawutschke (ed.), Connections. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of ATA. Medford: Information Today, 165-174.
17. Vuorikoski, A.R. (1998). User Responses to Simultaneous Interpreting. In L. Bowker (ed.), Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies (187-195). Manchester: St. Jerome.
18. Weller, G. and Yanez P. (1998). The Audience’s Views on Simultaneous Conference Interpreters’ Performance in Mexico” In M. O’Keefe (ed.) Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, 69-85.