ARDIL ÇEVİRİDE KULLANICI BEKLENTİLERİ SURVEYING THE CONSECUTIVE INTERPRETER’S ROLE

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 7, 57 - 85, 19.01.2016

Şeyda Eraslan

Öz

Expectations on the interpreter constitute a crucial contextual and situational factor that needs to be taken into account in studies on interpreting. This paper attempts to report the results of a survey on user expectations in interpreting as part of the author’s PhD dissertation on consecutive interpreting. It is also a revised version of the paper presented at Cetra (Eraslan 2008).
Although the author’s PhD thesis includes triangulation of data obtained from various sources, this paper will focus on expectations on the interpreter from the point of view of conference participants. The aim of the study is to highlight these issues and contextualize the interpreter and consecutive conference interpreting within the broader socio-cultural context of Turkey.
Through the analysis of data taking into account information on the broader (socio-cultural context, institutional context, thematic setting, participants) and the more immediate contextual levels (actual interpreting contexts), it is aimed to find out whether and how the interpreter’s role differs from the way it is defined by different parties involved in the interaction. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

consecutive interpreting, interpreter’s role, expectations, context

ARDIL ÇEVİRİDE KULLANICI BEKLENTİLERİ

Öz

Sözlü çeviride çevirmenden beklentiler, sözlü çeviriyle ilgili çalışmalarda
dikkate alınması gereken önemli bir bağlamsal ve durumsal faktördür. Bu
çalışmada, yazarın ardıl çeviri üzerine hazırladığı doktora tezinin (Eraslan
2011) bir bölümünü oluşturan sözlü çeviride kullanıcı beklentileri anketinin
sonuçları ele alınacaktır. Bu çalışma ayrıca Cetra’da sunulan çalışmanın
geliştirilmiş bir versiyonudur (Eraslan 2008). Yazarın doktora tezinde farklı
kaynaklardan elde edilen veriler tartışılmaktadır, ancak bu makalede sadece
konferans katılımcıları açısından çevirmenden beklentiler üzerinde durulacaktır.
Makro (sosyo-kültürel bağlam, kurumsal bağlam, tematik ortam,
katılımcılar) ve mikro düzeydeki (sözlü çeviri yapılan toplantı ortamları)
bağlamlara ait verilerin analiziyle, çevirmenin rolü etkileşime dahil olan
taraflarca tanımlandığından farklı mıdır, farklıysa ne ölçüde bir farklılık
sözkonusudur sorularına cevap aranacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ardıl çeviri, çevirmenin rolü, beklentiler, bağlam

Kaynakça

• AIIC (2007) “AIIC’s Conference Interpretation Glossary”. www.aiic. net. Visited May 2007.
• Anderson, R. Bruce W. (1976/2002) “Perspectives on the Role of the Interpreter”. In Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger (eds). 209-217.
• Angelelli, Claudia. 2003. “The Interpersonal Role of the Interpreter in Cross-Cultural Communication, A Survey of Conference, Court and Medical Interpreters in the US, Canada and Mexico”. In The Critical Link 3 Interpreters in the Community, Louise Brunette, Georges Bastin, Isabelle Hemlin and Heather Clarke (eds). Amsterdam/Philadelpia: John Benjamins, 15-26.
• Cicourel, Aaron V. 1992. “The Interpenetration of Communicative Contexts: Examples from Medical Encounters”. In Rethinking Context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, Charles Goodwin and Alessandro Duranti (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 291-310.
• Diriker, Ebru. 2001. “De-/Re-contextualizing Simultaneous Interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower?” PhD dissertation. Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.
• Diriker, Ebru. 2004. De-/Re-contextualizing Simultaneous Interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Duranti, Charles and Goodwin, Alessandro. (eds). 1992. Rethinking Context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Edwards, Rosalind, Temple, Bogusia and Alexander, Claire. 2005. “Users’ experiences of interpreters: The critical role of trust”. Interpreting 7 (1): 77-95.
• Eraslan, Şeyda. 2008. “Cultural mediator or scrupulous translator? Revisiting role, context and culture in consecutive conference interpreting”. In Translation and Its Others. Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007. Pieter Boulogne (ed.) http://www. kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/papers.html
• Eraslan, Şeyda. 2011. “International Knowledge Transfer in Turkey: The Consecutive Interpreter’s Role in Context” PhD dissertation. Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona Spain.
• Gile, Daniel. 1991. “Methodological Aspects of Interpretation (and Translation) Research”. Target 3 (2): 153-174.
• Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Middlesex: The Penguin Press. Goffman, Erving. 1961. Encounters - two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis/New York: the Bobbs-Merrill Company.
• Katan, David. 2004. Translating cultures: an introduction for translators, interpreters and mediators. Northampton, MA: St Jerome Publishing.
• Kelly, Arlene M. 2000. “Cultural Parameters for Interpreters in the Courtroom”. In The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, Selected Papers from 2nd International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Roda P. Roberts, Silvana E. Carr, Diana Abraham, Aideen Dufour (eds). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 131-148.
• Kondo, Masaomi. 1990. “What Conference Interpreters Should Not Be Expected to Do”. The Interpreters´ Newsletter 3: 59-65.
• Kondo, Masaomi and Tebble, Helen. 1997. “Intercultural Communication, Negotiation, and Interpreting”. In Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research, Yves Gambier, Daniel Gile, Christopher Taylor (eds). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 149-166.
• Kopczynski, Andrzej. 1994. “Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems”. In Translation Studies – An Interdiscipline, Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl (eds.), Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 189-199.
• Kurz, Ingrid. 1989. “Conference Interpreting: User Expectations”. In Coming of Age: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, Deanna L. Hammond (ed.), Medford, NJ: Learned Information, 143-148.
• Kurz, Ingrid. 2001. “Conference Interpreting: Quality in the Ears of the User,” Meta 45 (2): 394-409.
• Leppihalme, Ritva. 1997. Culture Bumps: an empirical approach to the translation of allusions. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
• Lindstrom, Lamont. 1992. “Context Contests: Debatable Truth Statements on Tanna”. In Rethinking Context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, Charles Goodwin and Alessandro Duranti (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 101-124.
• Linell, Per. 1997. “Interpreting as communication”. In Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research, Yves Gambier, Daniel Gile, Christopher Taylor (eds). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 53-69.
• Marrone, Stefano. 1993. “Quality: A Shared Objective”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter No. 5, 35-39.
• Mason, Ian & Stewart, Miranda. 2001. “Interactional Pragmatics, Face and the Dialogue Interpreter”. In Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting, Ian Mason (ed). Manchester: St Jerome Publishing, 51-70
• Morris, Ruth. 1995. “The Moral Dilemma of Court Interpreting”. The Translator 1 (1): 25-46.
• Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 1991. “Paradigms gained or the art of productive disagreement”. AIIC Bulletin 19 (2): 11-15.
• Pöchhacker, Franz. 1994. Simultandolmetschen als komplexes Handeln. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
• Pöchhacker, Franz. 2000. “The Community Interpreter’s Task: Self-Perception and provider News”. In The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, Selected Papers from 2nd International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Roda P. Roberts, Silvana E. Carr, Diana Abraham, Aideen Dufour (eds). Amsterdam, Philadelphia : John Benjamins, 49-65.
• Pöchhacker, Franz. 2001. “Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting”. Meta 46 (2): 410-425.
• Pöchhacker, Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
• Pöchhacker, Franz. 2006. “‘Going Social?’ On the pathways and paradigms in interpreting studies”. In Sociocultural Aspects of Translation and Interpreting, Pym, Anthony, Miriam Shlesinger and Zuzana Jettmarova (eds). Amsterdam, Philadelphia : John Benjamins, 215-232.
• Pym, Anthony. 2000. Negotiating the frontiers: translators and intercultures in Hispanic history. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
• Reeves, Nigel B. R. 1994. “Translating and Interpreting as Cultural Intermediation – Some Theoretical Issues Reconsidered”. In Literary Studies East and West, Translation and Interpreting: Bridging East and West, Selected Conference Papers, Richard K. Seymour & C.C. Liu (eds). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
• Riccardi, Alessandra. 2002. “Interpreting Research: Descriptive aspects and methodological proposals”. In Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and opportunities, Garzone, Giuliana and Maurizio Viezzi (eds.), 15–27.
• Roy, Cynthia. 2000. Interpreting as a Discourse Process. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sauer, Annamarie. 1997. “An Invitation to Conference Interpreting”. Terminologie et Traduction – la revue des services linguistiques des institutions europennes 3: 15-25.
• Shlesinger, Miriam. 1995. “Stranger in Paradigms: What Lies Ahead for Simultaneous Interpreting Research”. Target, Special Issue: Interpreting Research 7 (1): 7-29.
• Shlesinger, Miriam. 2002. “Choosing a Research Topic in Interpreting Studies”. Korean Journal of Interpreting Studies 4 (1): 25-36.
• Vuorikoski, Anna-Riitta. 1993. “Simultaneous interpretation – user experience and expectations”. In Translation – The Vital Link. Proceedings.
• XIIIth World Congress of FIT, volume 1, C. Picken (ed.), London: Institute of Translation and Interpreting, 317-327.
• Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London and New York: Longman